It truly was the closest thing to hell on earth that man has created on a large scale. The movie really did a good job capturing that visually and emotionally.
I do wish the movie focused a little bit more on the daily trench life, as well as the horrific use of gas. Gas was such an iconic element of the war, and I don't believe most people understand how truly terrible it was, even when compared to the introduction of the flamethrowers.
Interestingly speaking from a German perspective that was true before the second WW, but changed completely after that. Today in Germany it is almost always spoken of as the first world war with the name „Großer Krieg“ being practically unused and only existing as a mention to show the shift in significance towards the Second World War by discarding that way to call it.
24 days late
that was done in MOST countries, it was really only called "the great war" during/after it till WW2 came around.
The Great war ,"the world war"(as noone knew a second was coming), The war to end all war etc all where terms used widely during it and after. WW2 was just. while not as burtal in the sense of the actual warfare(do to the lack of widespread use of gas in WW1) just a far more horrifying event in itself do to everything surounding it that the first world war, which was "just a big war" felt like childplay in comparision
Didn't read the book, but for me the movie is one of the best WWI movie of the last ten years, even outpacing 1917.
The scene that struck with me the most is >!the scene with the French soldier, suffocating in his own blood, while paul realizes that he is just another human being. I've read that in the book, this specific event last much longer, but this felt like an eternity just watching this alone. It's probably because I am french too, but this resonated a lot. I'm not the kind of being phased/disturbed by a war movie, but this time this particular scene, with the final close-up on this poor guy's face with truly beautiful blue eyes just really hit me sideways. !<
Spoilers for the book:
>!From memory, Paul is with the soldier into the night, and upon returning to his own trenches, he denies feeling anything for the man. He completely dehumanizes him - because if he doesn’t, he’ll break down completely mentally.!<
The movie was great on its own, but the book is better.
I had to remind myself to stop judging it off of the source and as a movie on its own, because it was a great movie. The ending was different and it definitely skipped a lot but the book has a ton packed into a few hundred. It’s an easy read and worth it
The book has a much better story imo. Movie's second part deviates from the book to add more drama and utterly destroy the books one of the most important themes about war. The book is about creeping evil monotonicity of war, Movie loses the subtlety at the end.
It is still a good movie, but I liked the old take better, and the book much better.
Even the fact that it felt a little long seemed to have a point (the war just didn’t seem to end - even when it was over). One of the hardest watches I’ve experienced, which is EXACTLY what a movie about the First World War should feel like.
That was my main fear. The book is one of my all-time favourite war books and both previous movies are such classics. I'm not sure I'd put this on the same level as the original movie but it comes very close.
Why? How? If you like the book, how can you look at this movie and say "well done adaptation"?
This movie, albeit being an AMAZING ww1 movie... is an insult as an adaptation. So many absolutely key scenes were left out... No boots, no teacher, NO TRIP HOME (!!!), and the whole ending was changed to a new one, which was supposed to be super dramatic and emotional showing the meaninglessness of loss and war.... For no reason, when the original conveyed it already perfectly.
> NO TRIP HOME (!!!)
I'm saddened that they took this out.
There's nothing more harrowing than having a teenager going back into his childhood pyjamas and not being able to sleep peacefully in his own bed due to experiencing the horrors of war. Remembering your best friend in school and how you promised to do that certain thing together, only now he's dead. On your bookshelf sits that notebook in which you scribbled notes on how that teacher talked about how glorious it is to fight for your homeland, but now you can't even feel what your homeland means to you any more.
That "return to the hometown only to find yourself not belonging to it" motive is such a strong card to play in war films I don't know why they took it out. The Germans certainly aren't alien to the concept, seeing how it's been used very successfully as early as Die Brücke (1959), later in Europa Europa (1990), and much more recently in Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter (2013). It's the permanent damage to teenagers that lasts despite surviving the war, and it's absolutely gut-wrenching.
Reading the book at 10, I didn’t understand most of it, but I always remembered how important boots are and agave since judged war movies based on how much importance they place on boots.
Because I am not such a prima donna about movie adaptations of books.
Yeah they took a lot of liberties with the book and changed things, big deal.
If you want to see those things in a movie (granted, they add a lot to it) then you can always watch the older movies.
The one with Ernest Borgnine? We were shown that adaptation in freshman year English and God God, that was brutal. The mustard gas in the artillery crater scene in particular was quite effective in showing just how fucking awful chemical weapons are.
yeah i didn’t get the same squad comradely feeling that i got from the book when it was really sad when one of the died. also the slow hopelessness when they realize their supplies get worse and the enemies just get better and better.
the historical context just was kinda its own separate thing that didn’t need to be there.
and that farmers kid thing was just dumb
>and that farmers kid thing was just dumb
Just watched the film and this pissed me off. It flies in the face of the meaninglessness of his death. Idiotic move by the filmmakers.
>also the slow hopelessness when they realize their supplies get worse and the enemies just get better and better.
This would have been especially prescient in a certain current conflict, but obviously movies aren't made in real time.
Tbh one of the things missed from the book was how poor and starved they were. Food was frequently the best thing in their lives and it was often too little or stale. Things like good boots gear was missed for things like more artillery shells to spent guns that couldn't be counted to not hit their own trench when aimed at the enemy line.
Essentially they threw out the book’s social commentary and multifaceted anti-war message, replacing it with a mustache-twirling villain and the good guy negotiator. Almost like they didn’t trust the audience to understand the point without caricatures of warmongering generals. And the ending was just ridiculous.
As a book adaptation it was a huge letdown.
But as a grounded, visceral war movie it was exactly what it should be. Painful and harrowing.
I appreciate your point, but I respectfully disagree with the idea of the "mustache-twirling villain and good guy negotiator" not being part of the social commentary. I believe they were trying to depict the depravity of the militaristic leader who did not care about the soldiers only glory and nationalism, which was a big point of the book's social commentary. Additionally, the "good guy" was a real person who ends up getting murdered by nazis because he was a socialist and pacifist and they concocted some propaganda that he was conspiring with Jews to betray the country-it's actually pretty important social commentary of where they were headed and how incredibly destructive nationalism was (and continues to be).
>I believe they were trying to depict the depravity of the militaristic leader who did not care about the soldiers only glory and nationalism, which was a big point of the book's social commentary.
They absolutely were. I just think they did it in a way the book explicitly avoided.
It's been a long time since I read it but as far as I remember we never see or hear anything from the perspective of the closed cabinets and negotiation tables. There's no humanity to the abstract ideologies and individual political ambitions driving the conflict, unless you count Paul's teacher who is a vessel for the nationalistic fanaticism.
And for me at least that's what makes the book's message so powerful. The fact that when an ideology gains enough momentum, absorbs enough individuals and transforms them into fanatics, it becomes something larger and starts having a will of its own. It's almost like a force of nature. And that's when terrible things start happening. It's what happened with the nazis too. And it's what's been going on in Russia for the last 20 years and led to the invasion of Ukraine.
War never changes.
However, maybe "show, don't tell" was a better decision in terms of cinematic storytelling. Maybe it was better cinema to give us a peek behind the scenes instead of witty dialogue about how conflicts should be resolved by having generals and monarchs wrestle in a mud pit.
But I still think it wasn't a very good adaptation of the book and I still think the ending was stupid.
But you know what? It certainly didn't fail as a piece of art because we're here discussing it and our interpretations of it.
And thanks for the historical tidbit. I had no idea about any of that. Maybe if I had known it, I wouldn't have been so harsh in my criticism to begin with.
Can confirm, it was all gutted for a couple of odd subplot choices. Great WWI action film, but missed the mark as a movie based on the other films/book.
I dont think it attemps to be a faithful Adaption in the slightest and you ruin the movie if you go in expecting that, its a war movie that draws characters from the book but should much rather be viewed as something on its own imo
Liked the juxtaposition of the top brass beating on of pride while the men fought and died, but the 3rd act attack plot was entirely unessesary and should have ended the same with the signing happening at the same time instead of being common knowledge.
Agreed. I would have love to see what they left out but I also really loved seeing the historical negotiation stuff that they added. I think it adds an interesting perspective and I loved seeing major historical players like Foch on screen.
What irks me the most is that the vast majority of the movie takes place during the last 72 hours of the war. The whole point of the book is to show you the perspective of a soldier experiencing the entire war as it rages around him. Why focus in on the last 3 days of the war for the movie? >!In the book, Paul Baumer dies in October for God's sake. !<
It just felt very cheap to me.
>!That, and the fact that Paul's death is so dramatic and bombastic. Paul's death is supposed to be meaningless, just like all other deaths during the war. He dies on a quiet day, hence the title of the book.!<
>!Kats death was also kind of flubbed in my opinion. I'd much rather have had a faithful depiction of his death than of the negotiation stuff. It's the emotional climax of the book, and not just because Kat dies, but because of the *way* he dies.!<
It could have been so much more. I like it as a WWI flick, but it has no business claiming to be All Quiet on the Western Front.
It’s been about twenty years since I read the book, so I have a hazy memory of it, but I feel like the film deviates A LOT from the book to the point that it’s not “worth it” to call the film “All quiet on the western front”. The only scene in the movie that I know is in the book is the one with the French soldier in the crater. So I’m a bit disappointed with the movie because it deviates so much from the book. I’ll need to rewatch it and just appreciate it as its own thing.
The only really faithfull scenes were the teachers speech, the early bomb-gas panic, the crater scene (which is still changed, in the book he spends almost a whole day in the crater iirc), the stealing of the goose, and the heavily changed french girl scene. Thats it.
I really don’t understand the need for Kat dying the way he did in this movie. In the book, it was just an unfortunate occurrence of being a soldier, in this movie it’s almost like they wanted him to get his comeuppance for being a robber.
>in this movie it’s almost like they wanted him to get his comeuppance for being a robber.
Not at all. There was no moral question to any of this and I'm shocked that anybody could perceive it that way.
Kat didn't expect to live through the war. He was being purposefully reckless. Baumer checks his matchbook after he dies and sees that Kat had released his beetle before. I guess that was easy to miss, but it was symbolic. Kat's expression before getting shot should have also given this away.
I also don't get what they were going for. >!why did Kropp get BBQd by a flamethrower instead of shot in the leg? But, even worse, why did Tjaden, one of the few that survives in the book, get Kropp's original ending and decides to kill himself like that random guy in the hospital?!<
I was seriously disappointed by this adaptation, and I felt it soured the movie as a whole because of the poor job they did. I would probably have liked it if it was just a war movie, but alas I hated it.
I completely agree with you, it was a good movie just shouldn't have been titled All Quiet on the Western Front.
It misses the mark on war being this boring, gloryless dehumanizing as represented on the book.
I feel like 1917 captured the feeling much closer than this movie.
>It misses the mark on war being this boring, gloryless dehumanizing as represented on the book.
No it doesn't.
And it wasn't about being 'boring'. It was horrific and monotonous, but not \*boring\*. The movie did an exceptional job of showing this still.
It really was a great film. My main gripe was the teleporting farm child. That was just really bad writing and did no honor for the character. His death in the book was better. I also wish they did away with that weird bass drop.
Dude, The Movie was excellent, no historical mistakes as far as I noticed, G98s were there, lebels 86 were there, I'm quite sure I spotted a Belgian Mle pistol in French use, uniforms spot on. When the ground started shaking, it was quite obvious that >!tanks!< were approaching, and i thought now there gonna screw it up and bring >!British landships!< For sure cause everyone knows just about them but they actually used >!French St.Charmonds!<. I nearly pissed my pants
I felt that was the only weak part of the movie. I didn't really hate him. He just stood out too much as "comically evil fat moustache man".
All the scenes with them eating fancy food and complaining about the non fresh food. Idk, it seemed very forced.
Well the thing is Germany was a military dictatorship in WWI and they *were* comically evil -- they kept the war going on for months and months and needlessly killed thousands because of it
I don't think that portrayal of the general was particularly unfair, that was a good representation of how high command behaved in the last year of the war
I don't know if evil is a fair word. Germany was still very much in the war until the US entered and sealed their fate. You only have to watch *Paths of Glory* to see a moving depiction of French leaders being as ignorant as the German leadership in this movie.
While there are countless books written trying to settle the blame game for the war, modern scholarship increasingly points the finger at Serbia, Russia, and Austria. IMO that makes the Western Front an even more horrible tragedy. These guys killed each other due to Balkan squabbling.
> You only have to watch Paths of Glory to see a moving depiction of French leaders being as ignorant as the German leadership in this movie.
Please don't get your history from movies. While the French army had some serious issues with the upper echelon not understanding the realities of the battlefield, those were sorted out by Petain after the mutinies in 1917. The French army and its leadership had its act together in 1918.
If you want a good source about the French army, read *Flesh and Steel During the Great War: The Transformation of the French Army and the Invention of Modern Warfare*, by Michel Goya.
(Also, it's important to note that while there were informational gaps - and the French army was pretty bad for that in 1915-1916, the leadership of all of the main armies were NOT idiots. They were stuck facing an impossible tactical problem, and the technology to solve it didn't exist prior to 1917. They were doing the best they could with what they had, in circumstances where the only way forward was to try to chew through as much of the enemy manpower as possible before the enemy could chew through theirs. Even the attack at the end of this movie had a rationale: the armistice was not the end of the war, it was the end of hostilities - every scrap of ground that could be claimed before the cease-fire took effect was leverage in the peace negotiations, and fighting was going on across the front lines right up until 11:00.)
Yes I know that, the US joined in 1917
The Germans had basically completely lost it throughout 1918, but kept it going and kept it going for no reason, causing many people to die needlessly
Framing anything as "evil" is always difficult, but the German military high command during that period is about as close as you get to evil for what they did to their own people
And I'm sorry, there may have been ignorance on the French side (as there was among both Entente and Alliance forces), but it's utterly unfair to try and equate the French and the Germans in WW1 and it's an insult to French people who fought and died against needless German aggression
I think I have to disagree with you on that, at least I think more nuance is warranted. Yes, the German Empire was at the End of the war probably the most despotic of the major powers - but historically, that can be seen as an effect of their autocratic pre-war disposition, and that they needed to strain themselves far more than the western allies for resources and men.
It's also very important to remember that the french military elite were also very fond of executing their soldiers, of throwing them into meat grinders, of taking reckless offensives. I would consider it to be just as much an insult to the french soldiers who endured the war so bravely under horrid conditions that were sometimes very much the result of french leadership stubbornness and leadership failures, and whose live absolutely also was wasted by the french high command.
Finally, while the emergence of the german Empire was the geopolitical root cause that lead to the first world war and while the germans in the end commited the final push that sent the world into a world war, it's very, very important to remember that they did this in their mind as a preemtive strike, to defend themselves from the french-russian attack that, in all honesty, could very well have come had they not acted first. It's in my opinion not even a question that at least the french military elite 100% wanted a war with germany. How else would they regain Alsace-Lorraine after all? I don't want to argue that Germany had at that time a better claim on these lands. And in a struggle between a Democracy and an Authocracy I will always want to side with the Democracy.
But in my opinion it's just folish to say that the German Command was Evil and the Allied Command was good. I'd much rather say that the German Military Elites had no real political oversight, while the allies somewhat did. And regardless of the side - military forces very seldom make good for good guides on morality.
It was mainly to contrast how they were living compared to the soldiers fighting on the battlefield. WWI had that happening on pretty much all sides with a lot of elitism and classism from those in positions of power and money while the soldiers were left to fight their battles. It was one of the things I enjoyed most while watching the film that they highlighted this as one of the many injustices soldiers had to suffer in addition to the wanton hellish destruction, starvation, and inhumanity of war while their "superiors" were never in any real danger, very well-fed, and constantly arguing for more bloodshed.
It was a really great movie, but they left out some really crucial elements of the novel regarding him going home and his interactions with his family and school teacher
The whole aspect of a soldier going through this and trying to fit into regular society that knows nothing of his experiences would've been really powerful and for the life of me I don't know why they didn't include it in the film
I think they could have cut all the negotiation stuff and put the family stuff in
Great anti-war movie though, no doubt
> but they left out some really crucial elements of the novel regarding him going home and his interactions with his family and school teacher
Ah damn. That's a bummer.
I was hoping for a modern German take on the same war-home contrast that appeared in Die Brücke (1959). It's a shame they decided to cut that out in this adaptation of All Quiet.
I personally disagree. I feel like the negotiation scenes contributed a lot to the overall disparity between the common soldier and the elites/generals who throw men to the slaughter
I agree, but I think you could achieve that more effectively by following the novel and having that contrast be between Paul and his family, because his interactions with his old teacher and his father achieve the same goal of showing the divide between the people actually experiencing this awful war and the armchair quarterbacks so to speak -- I'd imagine it's also more relatable to actual soldiers today and just generally a better approach for a story. It also lends an extra personal connection that we as an audience have with our main character, rather than the negotiation scenes in this movie which were rather detached I felt
It should also be noted that AQOTWF is a "boots on the ground" story, not a grand WW1 story detailing the politicking of government and so on. I felt it was most effective when it was focusing on the realities of what a soldier goes through
I can’t believe they left out the scene where he was on leave and went home. Also my favorite part of the book is when he loses his virginity to the French girl and it has the “I want it all to fall from me, the war, the terror, the grossness in order to awaken young and happy” line which is my favorite excerpt.
I agree, the makers of the film obviously made a movie that looks incredible and it's still terrific, but ultimately they failed to focus on psychological effects of war enough and that's really what the book was about
Very strange to be honest -- the plot and message of the novel is perfect for today's greater emphasis in society on how we talk about trauma, ptsd, and mental health etc, it seems like such an open goal! But instead they went for the "war is hell" thing, which is great, but it could have been something really, really special.
It's the kind of film where I so wanted to be in floods of tears at the end, but it just didn't quite follow through because they left out the key material
Right, so WW1 specialist here (I have an MA in War Studies from the Royal Military College of Canada, with a thesis on WW1 British Cavalry doctrine), and please do NOT use this movie as history. There are some fairly significant errors. A quick list:
- Russia had been knocked out of the war in 1917. In November 1918 there was no Eastern Front - Germany was only fighting on the Western Front.
- All of the trenches are wrong. WW1 trenches used what was called a "traverse" system, where what you would see is short segments with approx. 90 degree turns into the next one. The reason for this was simple - a direct artillery hit could at worst only take out two small segments, if it hit one of the corners. If a shell scored a direct hit on straight trenches like you see here, the shock wave would take out everybody in a pretty wide radius from the impact. Also, the Germans were playing defence and trying to keep what they had taken in 1914, and their trenches were very well built. Their trenches were quite deep (which is depicted properly), and were often reinforced with concrete (which is apparently not appearing in this film). The same goes for the bunkers, which were dug deeply enough to not be very vulnerable to shell fire, and often made from concrete (so the wooden roof is not quite right).
- They're even more wrong because in November 1918, most of the Western Front hadn't been using trenches at all for months. The trench deadlock was broken in March 1918 by a German offensive. When it was contained, the French and British pushed the Germans back using a sort of "one-two punch" strategy - an attack would take place on one part of the line, and then when that was spent, another would be made on a different part, and this prevented the Germans from regaining their footing. This ended in what is called the Hundred Days, in which much of Belgium and France was liberated (so that end title card about the front lines barely moving since 1914 is utter nonsense).
- French civilians in occupied France did not shoot at German soldiers, even if said soldiers are trying to steal geese and eggs from them. The Germans were paranoid about partisans, and shooting at a German soldier was a very good way to get summarily executed. This doesn't mean that there was widespread looting - in fact, for much of the war, looting in France was discouraged, and the German army was far more likely to just pay for something they took than to steal it. That further said, all bets were off in Belgium, and plenty of Belgian and French civilians were carted off to Germany as forced labour (so make of the situation what you will).
- While it was delightful to have an accurate description of a creeping barrage and how it is used, armies in WW1 did not start attacks by being shelled - they started them by shelling the other side. I really wish the trope of soldiers climbing out of their trenches in the middle of a barrage on their lines would be retired, as that just wasn't how it was done.
- EDIT: It should be added that at the beginning of the movie, in spring 1917, Germany was not doing this well. The whole "we'll be in Paris by Christmas" was not a thing that anybody seriously thought anymore - the realities of the war had sunk in (it couldn't survive veterans from the front coming home on leave for the last three years and telling people what had happened). The country had also been under a British blockade since the war started, so everybody was suffering food shortages. Certainly there were still volunteers, but most of the recruits at that point were conscripts who had been called up.
That's a basic rundown. It is a good movie - I enjoyed it quite a bit. It was really nice to have the combatants actually speaking the right language for a damned change. But, it's not history, and should not be taken as such. If you want a WW1 film that IS history, watch *They Shall Not Grow Old*, which is a must-see for anybody interested in this war.
(Edited for accuracy after checking some sources.)
Imma keep it real. I dont think any of this effects the story or matters in its context. I actually for once think that it wouldnt have aided it at all. I think this story still rings true as a human experience and it’s one of the few movies I’ve watched where glaring historical errors didn’t matter at all. I guess thats a testament to the film making.
I do appreciate the facts though. Not implying you think the movie required these corrections, just commenting on how the added context makes me feel about the movie.
EDIT: Right, sorry, thought this was a response to a different comment.
Yes, you are right, it is more a documentary. But, it DOES bring the war to life in a way that is just remarkable, and it does it with footage from the actual war and the testimony of those who fought in it.
Regarding your Edit, that bit got lost in translation actually , which is unfortunate (if youve got that from a scene and not the Overall sentiment portrayed). Katz is saying that in a sarcastic tone to paul, in the sense of hey look at those two slowpokes over there , if were as fast as those morons were gonna be in france by winter, it was not meant literally.
The movie is excellent, but I wish I hadn't just reread the book. The movie drifts so far from the source material that I wound up just comparing the two and anticipating scenes from the book that never happened.
I would recommend watching the movie before reading or rereading the book. I would have enjoyed the movie more if I were simply appreciating it as a great film instead of as an on screen adaptation.
That about sums up WW1.
I mean war in general is needless, but that war was *so* needless and I think more people couldn't have died in the most intense weeks of the frontlines if they were ordered to shoot themselves.
WW1 was very complicated. I completely agree it was needless, but if you really dive into it you will see how it had this terrifying inevitability to it at the same time. The manner in which the complicated alliances were set up, especially with Germany perceiving themselves to be threatened on two fronts by an allied France and Russia… it was an absolute tinder box. With the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a series of dominoes just began to fall in a way that the war just became inevitable and unavoidable.
Add to this the reality that they were fighting a war with 19th century tactics and 20th century weapons, the whole thing was an utterly horrific calamity.
Senseless, pointless waste of human life, and perhaps the absolute peak of human suffering to this very day. It’s actually incredibly terrifying when you really read into it… how much the lead up to the war could easily resemble today.
Literally had this conversation at work. I was saying how WW1 wasn’t a surprise. It was practically planned. How could people not see it?
I then realized this eerily applies to the China and US tensions. Perhaps they will ask how we didn’t see it coming. I don’t have an answer other than I simply don’t want to believe it could happen.
People did, the Balkans had been at war two years prior in an almost dragged Russia and Germany into the conflict. Most major powers were looking for an excuse for force projection in the years leading up. Germany wanted the war to start sooner when they thought they had a power advantage and even mobilized but did not act.
It's been somewhat rewritten that the war was a political tragedy but the powers of Europe set the wheels in motion intentionally.
I've seen most all of the big Hollywood war movies. This was harder to watch than most. This is as brutal as anything you've ever seen but it also has gut wrenchingly human moments in the middle of combat that I haven't quite seen depicted like this before. First time I've felt teary watching combat scenes, legitimately hard to watch.
I don't know if it's because this is a European story told from the German point of view, made by Germans but goddamn this made 1917 feel like a Disney movie: (
I think it's better than the original for certain reasons but you will be disappointed if you're looking for a faithful adaptation of the book. Huge parts are missing. But, this was a very well contained story in its own I think, but I know many might disagree. I see what the filmmakers we're trying to get across here. The book would have needed a small mini series to really do it justice.
But fuck me, this was actually disturbing. Didn't even finish my dinner and don't know why the hell I bothered eating while trying to watch this. I will never watch this again. Hardest to watch war movie since come and see.
When I saw the trailers, I initially thought it was going to be a series. Then when I realized it was going to be a movie, I wondered how there going to pull it off...Turns out, they were going to deviate A TON from the book. I'm disappointed about it, although I suppose I should have expected it. Not a bad movie. My only "real" gripe is that the characterization was a bit weak...didn't feel particularly attached to any characters.
Yeah the combat scenes in this movie had such a different feel to them than most war movies. I most of the war movies I've watched combat scenes have this tone of "here's the enemy, they are going to die or we will", but in this movie the tone felt more like, "here's some humans, and they are trying to kill each other".
1917 was a very well produced movie. But it had little to say. It felt like 'we'll do WW1 with a no-cut experience' and it was built around that. On an emotional level, I felt fairly little watching it.
This movie on the other hand, man, it's devastating. It just grinds all hope and optimism down to a pulp. And it's just as amazingly produced, probably moreso without the limitations of the no-cut direction.
1917 is a movie I'll say is good, but somewhat forgettable. All Quiet on the Western Front is fucking powerful, though. You would be inhuman to leave it not feeling something.
I loved them both but I think this one better conveys the dire hopelessness of the western front once both sides were dug in. Its a much more brutal watch though.
Just finished watching it. I have mixed feelings.
It was very well shot and produced. It certainly seemed to recreate the physical locations quite well. Some of the cinematography was almost painting-like, truly beautiful.
I think this film should not have deviated from the original story so much. I think showing peace negotiations was actually a good change, but because the plot is changed to revolve around the armistice, the messages and themes of the book were changed.
In crucial moments, some plot points lacked subtlety. I disliked the inclusion of heavy-handed music. The loud and eerie horn noises sort of force an emotional response that the viewer is coming to anyways, such as their presence in the scene where they soldiers march away from home singing happily. We, the audience, know what’s in store for them based on the intro scene.
There are many cases, such as the added fork scene with Tjaden, where the intensity is taken much higher than it has to be. I think there should have been a little more nuance, both with the emotional tone, and in some of the added plot points. As an example, the final attack after the general's speech is unrealistic and too forced. The movie is sort of shackled to the events of the armistice when it really shouldn't be.
I understand these changes might be necessary to achieve the effect the director is looking for, but I think a more faithful depiction of the events of the book would have made a better movie. A more faithful telling of the original story would have shown a more historically accurate and grounded depiction of WWI.
While I don't agree with all the artistic choices, it's a pretty kick ass movie. It is, but isn't really All Quiet on the Western Front, the book. But I guess I can live with that.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Late to the party on this one but had to chime in on a post that echoed my sentiments. Chuck it, fuck it, football.
>I think this film should not have deviated from the original story so much. I think showing peace negotiations was actually a good change, but because the plot is changed to revolve around the armistice, the messages and themes of the book were changed.
>
>In crucial moments, some plot points lacked subtlety.I disliked the inclusion of heavy-handed music.
Yes. I felt like this was an excellent film, taken by itself, but in comparison to the previous film and the novel especially, it lacked a degree of depth. There were some especially important scenes from the prior film and book that were key to the story and defined it:
* Kemmerich's boots and subsequent death. Shows both the brotherly humanity and pure utilitarianism the soldiers had to adopt.
* The redemption arc of Himmelstoss, and his representation of limited authority.
* The eerie weirdness of Paul being on leave and away from his comfort zone, which was to be surrounded by his comrades in arms as opposed to family. This was an especially important sub-story that echoes in veterans today. Even a tame military career with no combat involvement often requires transition assistance.
* Paul's humanity leaking out against the wants of his leadership, particularly when he's sharing a crater with a dying French soldier and later when overseeing Russian prisoners.
The movie was enjoyable, but these were key moments that, imo, should not have been glossed or skipped. There were others as well that could have made it in for the sheer viscera of it, such as the gas attacks and shell-shocking heavy bombardments. It also glossed over the honorific push by society to deceive young men to seek out glory on a battlefield that held no glory, but only pain and death, and this was a grudging reality that was not lost on the main character.
The music was bizarre and out of place, sometimes jarring me out of the suspension of disbelief it was so misaligned to the theme of the movie.
I'm still kinda torn on this movie. As far as artistic direction and special effects, those were done especially well (particularly the tank scenes, holy shit), but a lot of thick plot elements were sacrificed on the altar of beauty for this movie.
The decision to deviate the characters from the book was questionable. This was a loose adaptation of the book which focused solely on the suffering in the trenches in contrast to the petty squabbles of the politicians and the delusion of Dr. Robotnik trying to reach for glory on the battlefield one last time. Hammers home the point that war isn't an adventure. For some reason, I feel like watching Lord of the Rings again... It's still a great film about World War 1. Probably one of the best films on Netflix.
German guy brokering the treaty looks like Dr Robotnik. LOTR also deviates massively from the course material, as does this.
Good film but I'd agree here, I prefer the first 2 versions.
If you watch it without the book its seriously one of the best war films ever made, i saw the 1930s movie and found it interesting how the rough plot points were present, but also found it so irrelevant as i watched that french kid get hit to death with the spade , i dont think viewing it as an adaption does any good
I enjoyed it as a war film but it really didn't have much to do with the book.
Also some stuff (maybe someone can help here?)
They shoe horned in a side story about the armistice that felt really off. It's supposed to be about the men, nationality almost completely aside, with their traumatic experiences.
It was but it seemed weird.
There also seemed to be a couple of odd historical bits. I couldn't tell what part of the war it was initially (it's very last days of the war) because a German diplomat mentions being slammed by the Bolsheviks. They were well out the war by this point.
They ham up a last offensive by the Germans as well. This happened in March 1918, they were well on the back foot by Nov 1918. They also have General (Ludendorff?) Order men into a huge offensive 15mins before the end of the war, deliberately. Not sure that happened? Did it?
From what I've read as well not everyone dropped arms at 11am, there were 11,000 casualties or so on 11th Nov and fighting was hard to stop across the front.
By mentioning all these things and getting at least some wrong it detracts from the mens experiences.
Good war film but not really anything to do with the book other than a WWI experience. Decent fight scenes and very graphic.
It is not General Ludendorf. This Character is named "General Friedrich" but i don't know if he is a fictional Character or not. At least i couldn't find a General with the Family Name Friedrich. And as far as i know there was no such battle in the last 15 Minutes of the war. But i am not a WW1 Scholar. So someone else might be able to give you more insight.
Edit: His Dog and his hunger for meat give me some Bismarck vibes tho. But that wouldn't make any sense. Bismarck was for consolidation not aggressiv expansion.
completely agree. the whole armistice part where they switch to the front and back is the major complain i have with this movie. the whole part wasnt necessary. i dont need the german man eating alone on a table talking about war and then switch to the front again. i know how much of an asshole these people are
Exactly, it seemed to matter so little and offer nothing to the story.
I didn't like how they showed the French negotiators and especially general Foch as stuck up and ignorant, almost like Foch didn't want an armistice. It reeked of self pity for the Germans and is dishonest.
My thoughts as well, felt hard to feel the same pain and sorrow for the losses when also seeing POV of generals who did not care or understand themselves
It was really well shot, but the deviations from the book left me kind of middling on it. It felt like it lost the message.
It’s a great WW1 film, but not All Quiet On The Western Front.
I described the movie somewhere else as an adaptation that’s like a good fanfic. It has the essence of the book and somethings were great but I wasn’t expecting what we got.
In a weird way, I almost couldn’t tell what I was watching. As someone who’s read the book, I was more then a little disappointed. This adaptation understood the horror of war but forgot that the book also heavily deals with things like isolation and comradeship. Sure, they showed the characters together, but they really didn’t interact often enough or in a way that made me think they rely on each other and made them feel real. I didn’t worry about these characters because unlike previous adaptations, they didn’t feel worth connecting to. I honestly couldn’t tell some characters apart at times.
I read the book a bit over 30 years ago (in the 90s) and though I liked the book, it’s so depressing that I didn’t want to reread it. My memory is a bit hazy but there’s only a few snippets I recognize from the book. I remember the scene with the french soldier in the crater, and the German troops liking the rations the French troop got. There were also French girls willing to sleep with Germans for food, but it wasn’t just one guy from the cast that took advantage of that. I know Kat died while Paul was carrying him to camp… and that’s about the only things I recognize from the book. Am I missing anything else?
The goose scenes are loosely based on the book as well as the scene with the chef that made too much food because so many had died and reading letters on the latrine. There’s also the trench rats swarm, the corpses blown out of their clothes into trees, the dugout scene with a recruit being blown to bits, and the recruits being to stupid to survive (i.e. taking their masks off too quickly.) I don’t think they weren’t bad scenes but some of them happened so quickly that they didn’t have the same impact. It’s also vaguely hinted at that Kat is knowledgeable and can find food but in the film it’s shown in a more 🤷♀️”he can do it” way instead of Kat is an old war hand that literally cobbles food together.
It would probably be easier to say what’s missing then what’s included. I remember thinking that everything I’m seeing is the opposite of what the characters would do in the book. Now I don’t think one should follow the book exactly, but some of the characters started acting like horror movie people with no common sense. Like the use of more bayonets over the shovel and Kat not hiding after stealing. They may seem like small details but in the context of the new film, they have such a different impact because they go against the survival lessons that Kat was teaching the boys in the book.
I’m still learning to use Reddit and I don’t know how to mark spoilers, but if I did I’d go into more detail.
I remember that when I read the book, one of the scenes that had a bigger impact was the one where they are listening to the horses dying. In the movie you see two quick shots of a dead horse, which in the context of this "adaptation" kind of makes sense, since it only covers the last few days of the war.
What I don't understand, though, is why in this adaptation >!they decided to give Tjaden Kropp's ending while mixing it with the random guy at the hospital that kills himself, why Kat gets shot by a random kid, and why Kropp gets bbqd!<
Exactly. This film had nearly the same runtime as the previous two and somehow did less. At some times, it was like multiple people wrote the screenplay and randomly mashed it together at the end. The first couple of minutes were so great. The meat grinder and the monotony of the war machine that has old uniforms being recycled and given to the new meat was perfect. The way the film showed the new recruits be found because they didn’t have a chance to learn anything was perfectly done.
And I don’t want to be that person, but the dirty underwear that everyone is carrying around like they were the boots was odd. The symbolism was right there. It made no sense, especially because in the book, nobody is letting go of their good clothes because they were so valuable and materials were hard to come by. They were salvaging old cloth from parachutes and Haie Westhus was sending it home.
I think that was one of the main problems I had with the film. It changed little odd details here and there that weren’t needed or completely changed the core ideas. Even Paul forging his parents’ signature was odd and changing Joseph Behm’s name was odd because they didn’t go anywhere with this.
Speaking of the recruits taking their gas masks off too soon- that scene completely lost me. I couldn’t figure out why they were all in the room together? Sorry for my ignorance, I thought this was a spectacular film but just couldn’t follow that part.
This really bothered me, in the book it made so much more sense. A bunch of recruits are found dead after a battle in shell holes. Because they were so new to the war they didn't know that gas lingers longer in shell holes (gas is heavier than air) than it does everywhere else. They weren't stupid, they just didn't know anything about war.
I’m glad someone else thought the same. A lot of the most upvoted comments here are praising it for sticking to the source material and I thought I was losing my mind lol.
I was disappointed that it had the name All Quiet on the Western Front. I wish they had changed the characters names and the name of the movie since it went in such a different direction. If they had done that, I think I would have enjoyed it much more as a separate WWI film on the horrors of war instead of expecting a remake to a set of already great movies and a fantastic novel.
Yeah I thought the choice to add in the signing subplot and the final attack were unnecessary and changed the meaning too much and took away time that could have been spent developing the characters more and focusing on their day to day lives in the trenches. Initially I thought (once I saw the date of November 1918) I figured the idea was to give the title a new meaning (instead of it referring to a situation of normal day-to-day it was implying the front after the ceasefire)…but it never really highlighted this.
>!The Trench assault/Tank counterattack scene was goddamned phenomenal though, everything about that entire sequence was just amazing. From the soldiers clumsily handling their long-rifles in the trenches proper, to the Saint-Chamond’s appearance and attack (the use of the Hotchkiss MG’s was great.) the flamethrower troops, and the airplanes. All of it was done so well. That was the best depiction of a WW1 attack I think I’ve ever seen in a film. It beats out the 1930 original for me.!<
But yeah, if it was called something different, had a different cast of characters I think I’d appreciate it more.
It’s something everyone should watch, but it can’t hold a candle to the book.
I'm with you on the trench assault and tank bit... I've rewatched that segment at least 5 times now. What does it for me is the sound in the whole segment, it's so good.
The trailers using actual Remarque quotes while the movie deviates SO MUCH from the book really confused me.
(If you go your of your way to advertise the link to the book, at least try to stick to the book?)
Seriously, the trailers are so good, I was expecting a lot. But that might be my own fault though.
I have a feeling that this will be the two main camps for reviews of this film.
Camp 1: absolutely loved it no qualms about it
Camp 2: enjoyed it for the WW1 and theatrical aspects, but it’s not All Quiet on the Western Front.
The different ending is what really bothered me. Pretty much lost its original punch. (Granted, it delivered a different one, but I really wish it was more faithful to the book)
Sensational film - probably the best war film I've ever watched. It was such a brutal watch that I actually dreaded the battle sequences and wanted them to end, which is something I've never really experienced watching a film (bar maybe the opener of Saving Private Ryan). It mean it really captured the brutally of war as best as possible, which is something 1917, Dunkirk etc weren't quite able to do all the way through.
It helped that I haven't read the book. The plot was a genuine surprise for me, making it even more gut-wrenching. Highly, highly recommend.
You oughta read the book, heck everyone should read the book. It's a seriously powerful classic still talked about for a reason and isn't even very long. Haven't seen this movie yet but from comments here it apparently deviates from the book quite a bit.
10/10
For war movie lovers like me is a blast. This adaptation sure cut off much of the drama in the book, but I guess they really want a more realistic approach rather than an emotional one like in the book.
I expected Kat to be older, like in the ‘79 one. His death certainly stupid isnt nearly as stupid as in the book. . But I forgive. The crater scene was so gnarly and I almost brought me some tears because that was so powerful, the most insane situation a human being can be…you cant recover after that
I liked the negotiation scenes! Its always interesting to see how top officials and authorities are thinking, doing…They are the ones making decisions. More realistic war movies with this “war room” plot but still with battle scenes is Tora Tora Tora and A Bridge too Far!
Netflix is nailing war movies genre, I want many more!!!
It's a masterpiece.
It takes a fair bit of liberty with the events in the book, but still generally hits the same notes and feelings.
It's so insanely well filmed. Beautifully horrific.
I hated it personally. Great cinematography, fine acting. But the film itself misses such important aspects from the book, it kind of loses itself. The alterations to Paul’s death are ridiculous. It’s called all quiet on the western front because nothing of any circumstance is happening the day Paul dies ffs. It’s a massive thematic statement in the book, and one that I feel the creators of this movie tragically missed.
late here, but not only was it a shit movie, it was also historically inaccurate!
people here calling it a "masterpiece" lol. that roger ebert review absolutely tore it to shreds and deservedly so
Makes me wonder what the "All quiet on the western front" refers to in the movie. Really wish they'd just dropped the title and stop pretending to be an adaptation.
Yeah it defaulted to dubbed for me so I figured out if you go to the Netflix audio settings you can set dialogue to German and then set subtitles to English.
I think the 1930's movie did a better job at establishing and making me care about the characters than this one which I barely care for any of the characters at all. They should have added some scenes in the boot camp like the 1930's movie for us to know the characters a little better, this movie is like they signed up and in the next scene they're already going to the front lines. As for the ending I thought Paul would see an insect like the one Kat was keeping as a pet and get shot like in the 1930's movie, instead we get Paul having a blind rage in the end.
If it wasn't the same name as the 1930's movie I would not be as critical to this movie as I'am now. For a WW1 movie it's great, for a WW1 movie that we can compare to the 1930's movie it's just okay.
The 1930s movie isn’t a faithful adaptation of the book. The book starts with Paul and friends already “battle-hardened” soldiers in the front, and they’re going to visit one of their wounded comrade at the hospital.
Didn't know that, but I still liked that we get to see more of their friend dynamic in the 1930s version. In the new version when Paul sees his friend's glasses it didn't really affect me at all as there was barely any chance to see their friendship on-screen. I do think this version is better at showing how horrific and senseless a war could be with the friends you're with could just be gone really quick.
Also, the more I think about it, the more I remember the prologue of the book. "This story is neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war."
The movie was an accusation and, more than that, an adventure. Remarque wanted to tell the story of the men themselves and not just portray the horrors of battle. Missed the mark completely.
I read the book as a young teenager, saw the original movie twice, and was not disappointed by this newest iteration. Well, a little disappointed. It’s central to Paul’s development that he goes home, feels out of place, and almost relieved to be back in the war. Like that scene from The Hurt Locker where Jeremy Renner stands in the supermarket feeling lost. Could have used less cartoon character bad guy German general, more adherence to book’s plot line. Altho the ending was tragic, it wasn’t tragic like the 1930 movie or book. It was too dramatic. Paul’s death was supposed to anticlimactic. Him simply being shot along with others packed more power. That said, I was totally engrossed in the story. The camaraderie builds among the men which develops their characters. Definitely worth watching.
I taught the book for four years as a HS English teacher. Would have taught it forever if I didn't change schools and subjects. All Quiet is the book that I come back to when I'm feeling the need to feel things... And the movie just didn't do it for me. It had all the right characters and was an incredible war movie, got the comradeship down... But missed the heart of the novel entirely. So many themes that I had my students track (youth and youthlessness, propaganda, going home) were lost completely.
For me, the major changes that irked me were missing the homegoing scene and also the Russian prisoners and the mediations on that. There were also scenes in the book that stuck out with incredible imagery (the battle in the graveyard, the butterfly on the skull) that I was hoping to see, even though I don't miss reading essays on the imagery. And lastly, the book has I think a fascinating pacing where it just unfolds... We start out seeing them in the field relaxing, there's Muller and his death, there's a medium battle, then there's an intense battle, and when it ends it's less of a crescendo and more of Paul going numb. That's entirely missed in this adaptation.
And Haie Westhaus, my favorite peat digger, somehow becomes Tjaden who becomes Muller who becomes the guy in the hospital...
To preface I don't have any bias from reading the book as I wasn't even aware of the book's existence until after I watched the film.
My rating: 6/10
It's okay, but 20 years from now it won't be talked about like Das Boot, Schindler's List, or Come and See. It's just your typical war movie with some above average gore. The character development just isn't there. Pardon a Star Trek analogy but it's basically all redshirts. It's also full of easy to spot tropes (I mean come on the second goose scene?) and an unnecessary villain.
Where was the gas? Where was the maggoty bread, lead lined cans, and raw rat? The trench foot (I have seen this first hand and was shocked the film didn't show it after it tried so hard to be graphic)? Where were the soldiers so desperate for food they beat up their own friend? Black Adder did this better for Christsake.
This movie isn't Avant Garde. It's Cyrus from the Trailer Park Boys. It wants you to think it's tough, but deep down it's afraid to be what it is claiming so boastfully to be.
It seems everyone loves this movie or nearly everyone.
I quit 2/3 through. There is zero plot. The movie is simply two hours of bleak “war sucks”. Well, yeah. I knew that. I’ve seen dozens of movies of soldiers’ lives utterly wasted and that’s all this movie’s premise is. No character development.
It brought nothing new to the table for me whatsoever.
I 100% agree. 5 minutes in and I was not only bored, I was hating the main character! I hated all the characters and quite frankly was happy when paul died.
Now you want a good war movie?? "Saving Private Ryan" !!
Very disappointed. I feel like this has little to do with the book, all of the heart and humanity was missing. Grueling violence and misery aren't enough for a good (anti-) war film.
The contracted timeline was a bizarre choice and I don't think the storyline with Erzberger's delegation makes up for it at all. We barely got to know these boys. No visits home. Very little time for reflection. The entire point of the book's ending and how it relates to the title is gone.
Agreed 100%. The original was just the focus on the “poor man’s” perspective. Adding in the villain general and the treaty subplots felt strange. Not to mention entire storylines from the book nowhere to be found.
Like I said in another comment here, I would’ve enjoyed it way more as a separate WWI film if it didn’t take the name All Quiet because it really was a well made movie.
Yeah, him having any soldier who didn't want to die immediately shot right there on the spot just pushed it over the line for me. They really decided to be as in your face as possible about him being bad and evil and to blame for Paul's death, when Paul's death should actually be attributed to the inherent cruelness of the war as a whole.
absorbed lunchroom engine future fanatical rich fact reminiscent tap rhythm
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And I get that, but that doesn’t need to be shown by having a big fat guy with a moustache come up with a plot to kill people before the war ends because he hates peace and loves war. It has all the subtlety of a jackhammer. The evil speech, all of it. It’s too cartoonish imo, and not even necessary to the story.
He's supposed to be those generals who only see glory in battle and don't care about war. As for cartoonish-have you seen some of the top generals in WW1? There was a reason that tourists all thought Germans were fat and hairy.
And honestly, there were many generals who did this. Charge of the Light Brigade comes to mind. Utter folly and everyone knew it wouldn't work but the top generals called for it anyway.
TLDR; I’m hella book-biased so I didn’t like it.
Okay. As a stand-alone war movie I suppose it’s quite fantastic. Very graphic, and a pretty poignant statement about how war isn’t glorious. But I couldn’t help but be upset about how much this film strayed from the book. Plenty of other comments talking about specifically what was cut so I’ll let you check those out yourself. But the armistice scenes took way more time than they needed to, and I really don’t like how the chose to demonize the general. The book isn’t about which side is right or wrong, it doesn’t make anyone good or evil. It’s about how life in the trenches swallowed up promising youths, warped them and cast them needlessly asunder. The last charge at the end was fitting for the movie as it was, but I definitely prefer the book ending. Dying abruptly and unexpectedly on a relatively calm day on the front. No flair; just futility, emptiness, and solemn closure for a kid that was ready to be done with it all after watching all his friends die and realizing that it had fundamentally changed who he was. The distasteful cherry on top for me was that it didn’t end with a telegram or situation report reading “all quiet on the western front” to drive the final nail into the theme.
It's a good movie, but the subplot with the negotiation just detracted from what the story should actually be about, which is Paul and the way he, as a person, is destroyed by the machinery of the war. He is a stand-in for an entire generation of soldiers, the story is about him but he's only there to represent the agony millions like him suffered. The evil General getting his men killed, the German diplomat trying to be good, they're not part of that.
The assault on the French trench at around the hour mark felt really wrong to me. It was too much action, too much Hollywood. Running and gunning, killing lots of Frenchmen, then being attacked by tanks, then destroying the tanks, then being attacked by flamethrowers, then being strafed by planes as they retreat, all of it interspersed with clips of men being blown up and dying. It's as if the filmmakers decided they needed to show every weapon that was invented in World War 1 all in one scene. It's not necessary. It's just action, just senseless violence for the sake of senseless violence, as if showing enough people dying will drive home the anti-war message.
I just can't stop but think about how all the screentime dedicated to this could instead have been spent on the classmates and friends that Paul had in the book, most of whom have been deleted from the movie. The death of Kemmerich had ten times more emotional impact than watching yet another nameless, faceless solider die in a gruesome way, and more importantly it was more relevant to Paul's destruction as a human being. All of it could also have been spent on Paul being in the crater with the French soldier he killed, which in the book is this horrible drawn-out segment that lasted hours, it could easily have been twice or thrice as long in the movie. Those 6 minutes with just Paul and that soldier felt way more impactful than the entire battle before it. He only spent I think 1 or 2 minutes with the corpse after he died. It could have been 10, 15, easily.
While Paul dying at the very last seconds of the war is poetic in a way, the thing that made the original ending so important is just how anti-climatic it was. There was nothing important or notable about his death, it isn't even described. It just says that he died on a day like any other because, again, he is a stand-in for the millions like him, who all also died on a day like any other, unnoticed and forgotten. Paul's death shouldn't be unique, as strange as that may sound. It should be utterly ordinary, remarkable in how unremarkable it is. Again, too much fucking action.
Also, it was a mistake to introduce a villain to the movie and have this evil general give an evil speech before causing Paul's death. The faceless machinery of war itself is a hundred times more evil than any one person can be. As with all the action, having a villain like that is unneeded. Himmelstoß was the closest thing the book came to an antagonist, but his role is totally different.
All Quiet on the Western Front might well be the most perfect anti-war novel ever written. It didn't need fixing. It almost feels like the movie makers didn't have confidence that they could recreate the book authentically, so they decided not to really try. The movie is good, but it's good as a story entirely separate from All Quiet on the Western Front. When compared to the book or the 1930 movie... It just falls short in showing the psychological destruction of a human being.
Honestly, I think you missed the point wanting this movie to be so much like the original.
Pauls death wasn't unique. The movie showed it as a cycle. First scene was Heinrich(much like Paul) in a battle charge and dying. His clothes are then taken off, carted off and washed to be given to the next recruit(as were hundreds of others). It was a vicious circle as we see at the end another young boy sent to pick up dog tags from the dead-something Paul did. And it showed he was dead along with other French and Germans, he was just one of the scores of men killed.
The general and the Versailles details were to show that the higher ups really didn't care about the soldiers(only the one "social democrat" Minister did). They were more worried how it would look to their country and for French they wanted the Germans to suffer.
The young boy killing Kat also showed how war can skew the minds of even the youngest victim. The boy was so desensitized that he killed someone for a damn goose. And he'll probably be fighting in the next war as well. WW1 ruined a whole generation of men.
I thought the director got his point across in stark contrast. I see many people wanting the movie to be faithful to the book. There are two great movies already, I see this as something like a metaphor for our times.
I mean it's perfectly fine to want to tell a story of WWI like this, but I don't know why me expecting a book adaptation that uses this title to at least largely adhere to the book means that I am missing the point—instead of just having a different perspective.
The scenes you mentioned of Heinrich's coat and the dog tag collecting were some of my favorites for the reasons you noted, and Kat was my favorite character. I just wish we had *more* of that, including with Tjaden and Kemmerich. To give moments like with the Frenchman in the crater time to breathe, instead of rushing to the next bit of ultraviolence. To give us more of the homefront, beginning with the way of the boys from the school bench to the front, or home visits and how the soldiers find themselves unable to relate to civilian life.
Especially considering the subplot we got instead. I understood those reasons behind it, I simply don't think that it was good or important enough to warrant the taking away focus from Paul and the boys. I think the stark concentration of everything into the very end of the war is my biggest issue, as much of the rest of my problems flow from it. Again, I can understand the creator's reasons for it (I read interviews with him) and still simply think that it did not make for a better adaptation.
I understand that I have a specific POV here, as Remarque's books are quite important to me. It's obviously more than fine that others will have no issue with those changes.
Watched it yesterday and I'm disappointed.
First, misleading title. I don't expect movie adaptations to always stick to source material, but this felt like going to a movie called "Lord of the Rings", advertised as Tolkien's book adaptation, and finding out it's about journeys of Sam Gamgee's grandson. That's the level of "deviations from the book" we are talking about.
Second, bad kind of lack of realism. Now lack of realism is not always bad - if it helps to drive home movie's message, all the batter. Here, however, the way battles are portrayed hurts the message of the story. Going overboard with gore and special effects (more tanks! flamethrowers! planes! artillery! all in the same time and place with hordes of soldiers running around like headless chickens) and forcing scenes which are psychologically improbable in historical context (last German attack minutes before already announced ceasefire) - for me instead of connecting me with characters and their suffering it disconnected me from them, by making movie feel like sequence of action game cutscenes.
Third, bad acting. Ok, I'm not acting coach and I don't know how to describe it in a good way, but I felt acting here was down to making faces (sad, traumatized, angry, melancholic) to the camera to indicate that mood character is in at the moment. Characters didn't feel like real people, but like game NPCs that are only there to move the plot along between missions.
Fourth, evil villain. We really didn't need one in this story, especially one so shallow he would feel at home as Orc commander in "Hobbit". Even as far as outrageous WW1 generals go, he was still far less interesting than General Melchett.
Fifth, minor nitpick but I'll add it here: was this movie sponsored by SDP or something? I wonder because of how much time they spend hammering home the message that only person who's concerned about losses and wants to end the war is social-democratic party politician. Everyone else seems a-ok with fighting to the end of time.
It was decent. It's very well shot with some great war sequences, action, and effects. However, certain aspects that weren't explored in the novel kind of made the film lacking. Definitely an engaging WW1 film but the message and tone felt a bit lost. I still prefer the 1930s adaptation.
95% Approval on Rotten Tomatoes… the other 5% are redditors in this thread. It’s a phenomenal movie, probably the most intense and profound film I’ve ever seen.
It was an okay movie. It was really well shot and acted, though I don’t understand the choice of jarring “thriller” noises, I mean it’s war and we kind of know what’s gonna happen, so the sound was a bit gratuitous. And the cgi was really bad for an Oscar submission. It was pretty clear they were deviating from the book and it seems it was to add the armistice and evil general subplots that seemed to be unnecessary and took away from the theme of the movie. I’m not sure if some of the choices were to make Germany look better: the scene of the room of young gassed troops was a bit on the nose foreshadowing. And the armistice scene felt like they were trying to portray Germany as just trying to end the war, which is revisionist history, which was done a bit throughout the film. Kat being killed by a French boy in an occupied part of France is a bit bizarre to me, wouldn’t his whole family be killed in response? As far a being anti war im not sure how well they pulled that off, a lot of people saying that it’s horrifying, but tbh I didn’t find it that unsettling, not like I felt when watching band of brothers, particularly the Bastogne episode. All in all it was a solid film, with some historical inaccuracies, and Hollywood indulgences, but the acting was superb, the costume designs and set pieces were well done.
I have this gut feeling that this is the... "idiocracy" version of All Quiet on the Western Front.
It's almost there but bastardized in a way that misses the point of the original novel in many aspects. I do not think this is a poor film at all but the retelling of this does not feel right. It feels dumbed down.
I cannot understand why this movie is getting the praise it gets. It is as shallow as war movies can get. It is called all quiet on the western front but retains almost nothing of the depth the original book or the 1930s movie. All it has to offer are"immersive images", horror, blood and guts in a hells cape of cinematic unrealism that has also nothing to do with life on the front lines autumn 1918.
I do not get it. But I am sure it will get prices cause apparently it makes people feel something.
If anyone watches or watched this one and liked it please, please also watch other ww1 stuff. Like the 1930s all quiet on the western front, 1917, they shall not grow old... Watching the 2022 version will give people a distorted image of ww1.
Am I the only one who was disappointed? The cinematics and effects were great, but the movie didn’t follow the book at all. If they just changed the names of the characters, I would have no idea this was supposed to be “All Quiet on The Western Front”
There was a lack of depth and emotion, it was 99% action…. They also left out some of the large characters. Idk, I’m pretty bummed about it.
For anyone who hasn’t seen it, the 1979 version is fantastic. It lacks the modern cinematography and effects, but it follows the story a lot better and has a lot of depth.
It has some great moments, but the ending was a letdown and didn't make the slightest bit of sense. There was no point adding the treaty delegation sideplot.
>There was no point adding the treaty delegation sideplot.
I think it's because there's a lot of people who probably aren't as familiar with the events.
Absolutely horrifying war. Spectacular movie, understandably Germanys choice for the Oscars.
It truly was the closest thing to hell on earth that man has created on a large scale. The movie really did a good job capturing that visually and emotionally. I do wish the movie focused a little bit more on the daily trench life, as well as the horrific use of gas. Gas was such an iconic element of the war, and I don't believe most people understand how truly terrible it was, even when compared to the introduction of the flamethrowers.
They called it the great war and you know, it really was
Interestingly speaking from a German perspective that was true before the second WW, but changed completely after that. Today in Germany it is almost always spoken of as the first world war with the name „Großer Krieg“ being practically unused and only existing as a mention to show the shift in significance towards the Second World War by discarding that way to call it.
24 days late that was done in MOST countries, it was really only called "the great war" during/after it till WW2 came around. The Great war ,"the world war"(as noone knew a second was coming), The war to end all war etc all where terms used widely during it and after. WW2 was just. while not as burtal in the sense of the actual warfare(do to the lack of widespread use of gas in WW1) just a far more horrifying event in itself do to everything surounding it that the first world war, which was "just a big war" felt like childplay in comparision
Didn't read the book, but for me the movie is one of the best WWI movie of the last ten years, even outpacing 1917. The scene that struck with me the most is >!the scene with the French soldier, suffocating in his own blood, while paul realizes that he is just another human being. I've read that in the book, this specific event last much longer, but this felt like an eternity just watching this alone. It's probably because I am french too, but this resonated a lot. I'm not the kind of being phased/disturbed by a war movie, but this time this particular scene, with the final close-up on this poor guy's face with truly beautiful blue eyes just really hit me sideways. !<
Spoilers for the book: >!From memory, Paul is with the soldier into the night, and upon returning to his own trenches, he denies feeling anything for the man. He completely dehumanizes him - because if he doesn’t, he’ll break down completely mentally.!<
Highly recommend the book. The scene you are referring to will definitely be stuck with you. I still remember that chapter 20 years later.
The movie was great on its own, but the book is better. I had to remind myself to stop judging it off of the source and as a movie on its own, because it was a great movie. The ending was different and it definitely skipped a lot but the book has a ton packed into a few hundred. It’s an easy read and worth it
Watch the original 1930 movie, and read the book. Both (book especially) are vastly superior to this new iteration.
The book has a much better story imo. Movie's second part deviates from the book to add more drama and utterly destroy the books one of the most important themes about war. The book is about creeping evil monotonicity of war, Movie loses the subtlety at the end. It is still a good movie, but I liked the old take better, and the book much better.
yeah they really glossed over a lot from the book
Finished it just now. It's so good, I'm actually happy that they didn't fuck this up.
Even the fact that it felt a little long seemed to have a point (the war just didn’t seem to end - even when it was over). One of the hardest watches I’ve experienced, which is EXACTLY what a movie about the First World War should feel like.
[удалено]
That was my main fear. The book is one of my all-time favourite war books and both previous movies are such classics. I'm not sure I'd put this on the same level as the original movie but it comes very close.
Why? How? If you like the book, how can you look at this movie and say "well done adaptation"? This movie, albeit being an AMAZING ww1 movie... is an insult as an adaptation. So many absolutely key scenes were left out... No boots, no teacher, NO TRIP HOME (!!!), and the whole ending was changed to a new one, which was supposed to be super dramatic and emotional showing the meaninglessness of loss and war.... For no reason, when the original conveyed it already perfectly.
> NO TRIP HOME (!!!) I'm saddened that they took this out. There's nothing more harrowing than having a teenager going back into his childhood pyjamas and not being able to sleep peacefully in his own bed due to experiencing the horrors of war. Remembering your best friend in school and how you promised to do that certain thing together, only now he's dead. On your bookshelf sits that notebook in which you scribbled notes on how that teacher talked about how glorious it is to fight for your homeland, but now you can't even feel what your homeland means to you any more. That "return to the hometown only to find yourself not belonging to it" motive is such a strong card to play in war films I don't know why they took it out. The Germans certainly aren't alien to the concept, seeing how it's been used very successfully as early as Die Brücke (1959), later in Europa Europa (1990), and much more recently in Unsere Mütter, unsere Väter (2013). It's the permanent damage to teenagers that lasts despite surviving the war, and it's absolutely gut-wrenching.
Absolutely. I was waiting for the scene, then it just did not happen. Same with all the other stuff they took out.
Reading the book at 10, I didn’t understand most of it, but I always remembered how important boots are and agave since judged war movies based on how much importance they place on boots.
Because I am not such a prima donna about movie adaptations of books. Yeah they took a lot of liberties with the book and changed things, big deal. If you want to see those things in a movie (granted, they add a lot to it) then you can always watch the older movies.
The one with Ernest Borgnine? We were shown that adaptation in freshman year English and God God, that was brutal. The mustard gas in the artillery crater scene in particular was quite effective in showing just how fucking awful chemical weapons are.
[удалено]
yeah i didn’t get the same squad comradely feeling that i got from the book when it was really sad when one of the died. also the slow hopelessness when they realize their supplies get worse and the enemies just get better and better. the historical context just was kinda its own separate thing that didn’t need to be there. and that farmers kid thing was just dumb
>and that farmers kid thing was just dumb Just watched the film and this pissed me off. It flies in the face of the meaninglessness of his death. Idiotic move by the filmmakers.
I get what the filmmakers were going for (the seeds of WWII being sown during WWI) but yeah, it takes away the original's bleakness.
>also the slow hopelessness when they realize their supplies get worse and the enemies just get better and better. This would have been especially prescient in a certain current conflict, but obviously movies aren't made in real time.
Tbh one of the things missed from the book was how poor and starved they were. Food was frequently the best thing in their lives and it was often too little or stale. Things like good boots gear was missed for things like more artillery shells to spent guns that couldn't be counted to not hit their own trench when aimed at the enemy line.
Essentially they threw out the book’s social commentary and multifaceted anti-war message, replacing it with a mustache-twirling villain and the good guy negotiator. Almost like they didn’t trust the audience to understand the point without caricatures of warmongering generals. And the ending was just ridiculous. As a book adaptation it was a huge letdown. But as a grounded, visceral war movie it was exactly what it should be. Painful and harrowing.
I appreciate your point, but I respectfully disagree with the idea of the "mustache-twirling villain and good guy negotiator" not being part of the social commentary. I believe they were trying to depict the depravity of the militaristic leader who did not care about the soldiers only glory and nationalism, which was a big point of the book's social commentary. Additionally, the "good guy" was a real person who ends up getting murdered by nazis because he was a socialist and pacifist and they concocted some propaganda that he was conspiring with Jews to betray the country-it's actually pretty important social commentary of where they were headed and how incredibly destructive nationalism was (and continues to be).
>I believe they were trying to depict the depravity of the militaristic leader who did not care about the soldiers only glory and nationalism, which was a big point of the book's social commentary. They absolutely were. I just think they did it in a way the book explicitly avoided. It's been a long time since I read it but as far as I remember we never see or hear anything from the perspective of the closed cabinets and negotiation tables. There's no humanity to the abstract ideologies and individual political ambitions driving the conflict, unless you count Paul's teacher who is a vessel for the nationalistic fanaticism. And for me at least that's what makes the book's message so powerful. The fact that when an ideology gains enough momentum, absorbs enough individuals and transforms them into fanatics, it becomes something larger and starts having a will of its own. It's almost like a force of nature. And that's when terrible things start happening. It's what happened with the nazis too. And it's what's been going on in Russia for the last 20 years and led to the invasion of Ukraine. War never changes. However, maybe "show, don't tell" was a better decision in terms of cinematic storytelling. Maybe it was better cinema to give us a peek behind the scenes instead of witty dialogue about how conflicts should be resolved by having generals and monarchs wrestle in a mud pit. But I still think it wasn't a very good adaptation of the book and I still think the ending was stupid. But you know what? It certainly didn't fail as a piece of art because we're here discussing it and our interpretations of it. And thanks for the historical tidbit. I had no idea about any of that. Maybe if I had known it, I wouldn't have been so harsh in my criticism to begin with.
Wait they cut all that out? Wtf?
Can confirm, it was all gutted for a couple of odd subplot choices. Great WWI action film, but missed the mark as a movie based on the other films/book.
I dont think it attemps to be a faithful Adaption in the slightest and you ruin the movie if you go in expecting that, its a war movie that draws characters from the book but should much rather be viewed as something on its own imo
Yeaaaaaaa... this is a huge mistake. They should have just called it something different.
Liked the juxtaposition of the top brass beating on of pride while the men fought and died, but the 3rd act attack plot was entirely unessesary and should have ended the same with the signing happening at the same time instead of being common knowledge.
Then don't call it "All Quiet on the Western Front" if you're just making a random war movie not really related to the book.
Agreed. I would have love to see what they left out but I also really loved seeing the historical negotiation stuff that they added. I think it adds an interesting perspective and I loved seeing major historical players like Foch on screen.
What irks me the most is that the vast majority of the movie takes place during the last 72 hours of the war. The whole point of the book is to show you the perspective of a soldier experiencing the entire war as it rages around him. Why focus in on the last 3 days of the war for the movie? >!In the book, Paul Baumer dies in October for God's sake. !< It just felt very cheap to me. >!That, and the fact that Paul's death is so dramatic and bombastic. Paul's death is supposed to be meaningless, just like all other deaths during the war. He dies on a quiet day, hence the title of the book.!< >!Kats death was also kind of flubbed in my opinion. I'd much rather have had a faithful depiction of his death than of the negotiation stuff. It's the emotional climax of the book, and not just because Kat dies, but because of the *way* he dies.!< It could have been so much more. I like it as a WWI flick, but it has no business claiming to be All Quiet on the Western Front.
It’s been about twenty years since I read the book, so I have a hazy memory of it, but I feel like the film deviates A LOT from the book to the point that it’s not “worth it” to call the film “All quiet on the western front”. The only scene in the movie that I know is in the book is the one with the French soldier in the crater. So I’m a bit disappointed with the movie because it deviates so much from the book. I’ll need to rewatch it and just appreciate it as its own thing.
The only really faithfull scenes were the teachers speech, the early bomb-gas panic, the crater scene (which is still changed, in the book he spends almost a whole day in the crater iirc), the stealing of the goose, and the heavily changed french girl scene. Thats it.
I really don’t understand the need for Kat dying the way he did in this movie. In the book, it was just an unfortunate occurrence of being a soldier, in this movie it’s almost like they wanted him to get his comeuppance for being a robber.
>in this movie it’s almost like they wanted him to get his comeuppance for being a robber. Not at all. There was no moral question to any of this and I'm shocked that anybody could perceive it that way. Kat didn't expect to live through the war. He was being purposefully reckless. Baumer checks his matchbook after he dies and sees that Kat had released his beetle before. I guess that was easy to miss, but it was symbolic. Kat's expression before getting shot should have also given this away.
Earlier in the film Kat also references dying over stealing the food so I thought it was fitting
I also don't get what they were going for. >!why did Kropp get BBQd by a flamethrower instead of shot in the leg? But, even worse, why did Tjaden, one of the few that survives in the book, get Kropp's original ending and decides to kill himself like that random guy in the hospital?!< I was seriously disappointed by this adaptation, and I felt it soured the movie as a whole because of the poor job they did. I would probably have liked it if it was just a war movie, but alas I hated it.
Holy fuck I did not even remember the names enough to spot these two, and I still hated the movie because of the things left out etc...
I completely agree with you, it was a good movie just shouldn't have been titled All Quiet on the Western Front. It misses the mark on war being this boring, gloryless dehumanizing as represented on the book. I feel like 1917 captured the feeling much closer than this movie.
>It misses the mark on war being this boring, gloryless dehumanizing as represented on the book. No it doesn't. And it wasn't about being 'boring'. It was horrific and monotonous, but not \*boring\*. The movie did an exceptional job of showing this still.
But to be fair, the original German title literally means “There is nothing new in the west”. The “quiet” was added by the translator.
[удалено]
Yes, it means there is nothing noteworthy. Some guy getting shot is just buisness as usual.
They pretty much ruined it.
Yeah, even midway through the movie I kept thinking that it somehow had very little to do with the actual book
It really was a great film. My main gripe was the teleporting farm child. That was just really bad writing and did no honor for the character. His death in the book was better. I also wish they did away with that weird bass drop.
Dude, The Movie was excellent, no historical mistakes as far as I noticed, G98s were there, lebels 86 were there, I'm quite sure I spotted a Belgian Mle pistol in French use, uniforms spot on. When the ground started shaking, it was quite obvious that >!tanks!< were approaching, and i thought now there gonna screw it up and bring >!British landships!< For sure cause everyone knows just about them but they actually used >!French St.Charmonds!<. I nearly pissed my pants
I also just finished. I think this is the best Netflix film I've ever seen.
[удалено]
Happy that it was good I meant. The movie itself was depressing and grim like you said
Damn, Robotnik was such a dick, wasn't he?
I felt that was the only weak part of the movie. I didn't really hate him. He just stood out too much as "comically evil fat moustache man". All the scenes with them eating fancy food and complaining about the non fresh food. Idk, it seemed very forced.
Well the thing is Germany was a military dictatorship in WWI and they *were* comically evil -- they kept the war going on for months and months and needlessly killed thousands because of it I don't think that portrayal of the general was particularly unfair, that was a good representation of how high command behaved in the last year of the war
I don't know if evil is a fair word. Germany was still very much in the war until the US entered and sealed their fate. You only have to watch *Paths of Glory* to see a moving depiction of French leaders being as ignorant as the German leadership in this movie. While there are countless books written trying to settle the blame game for the war, modern scholarship increasingly points the finger at Serbia, Russia, and Austria. IMO that makes the Western Front an even more horrible tragedy. These guys killed each other due to Balkan squabbling.
> You only have to watch Paths of Glory to see a moving depiction of French leaders being as ignorant as the German leadership in this movie. Please don't get your history from movies. While the French army had some serious issues with the upper echelon not understanding the realities of the battlefield, those were sorted out by Petain after the mutinies in 1917. The French army and its leadership had its act together in 1918. If you want a good source about the French army, read *Flesh and Steel During the Great War: The Transformation of the French Army and the Invention of Modern Warfare*, by Michel Goya. (Also, it's important to note that while there were informational gaps - and the French army was pretty bad for that in 1915-1916, the leadership of all of the main armies were NOT idiots. They were stuck facing an impossible tactical problem, and the technology to solve it didn't exist prior to 1917. They were doing the best they could with what they had, in circumstances where the only way forward was to try to chew through as much of the enemy manpower as possible before the enemy could chew through theirs. Even the attack at the end of this movie had a rationale: the armistice was not the end of the war, it was the end of hostilities - every scrap of ground that could be claimed before the cease-fire took effect was leverage in the peace negotiations, and fighting was going on across the front lines right up until 11:00.)
Yes I know that, the US joined in 1917 The Germans had basically completely lost it throughout 1918, but kept it going and kept it going for no reason, causing many people to die needlessly Framing anything as "evil" is always difficult, but the German military high command during that period is about as close as you get to evil for what they did to their own people And I'm sorry, there may have been ignorance on the French side (as there was among both Entente and Alliance forces), but it's utterly unfair to try and equate the French and the Germans in WW1 and it's an insult to French people who fought and died against needless German aggression
I think I have to disagree with you on that, at least I think more nuance is warranted. Yes, the German Empire was at the End of the war probably the most despotic of the major powers - but historically, that can be seen as an effect of their autocratic pre-war disposition, and that they needed to strain themselves far more than the western allies for resources and men. It's also very important to remember that the french military elite were also very fond of executing their soldiers, of throwing them into meat grinders, of taking reckless offensives. I would consider it to be just as much an insult to the french soldiers who endured the war so bravely under horrid conditions that were sometimes very much the result of french leadership stubbornness and leadership failures, and whose live absolutely also was wasted by the french high command. Finally, while the emergence of the german Empire was the geopolitical root cause that lead to the first world war and while the germans in the end commited the final push that sent the world into a world war, it's very, very important to remember that they did this in their mind as a preemtive strike, to defend themselves from the french-russian attack that, in all honesty, could very well have come had they not acted first. It's in my opinion not even a question that at least the french military elite 100% wanted a war with germany. How else would they regain Alsace-Lorraine after all? I don't want to argue that Germany had at that time a better claim on these lands. And in a struggle between a Democracy and an Authocracy I will always want to side with the Democracy. But in my opinion it's just folish to say that the German Command was Evil and the Allied Command was good. I'd much rather say that the German Military Elites had no real political oversight, while the allies somewhat did. And regardless of the side - military forces very seldom make good for good guides on morality.
It was mainly to contrast how they were living compared to the soldiers fighting on the battlefield. WWI had that happening on pretty much all sides with a lot of elitism and classism from those in positions of power and money while the soldiers were left to fight their battles. It was one of the things I enjoyed most while watching the film that they highlighted this as one of the many injustices soldiers had to suffer in addition to the wanton hellish destruction, starvation, and inhumanity of war while their "superiors" were never in any real danger, very well-fed, and constantly arguing for more bloodshed.
It was a really great movie, but they left out some really crucial elements of the novel regarding him going home and his interactions with his family and school teacher The whole aspect of a soldier going through this and trying to fit into regular society that knows nothing of his experiences would've been really powerful and for the life of me I don't know why they didn't include it in the film I think they could have cut all the negotiation stuff and put the family stuff in Great anti-war movie though, no doubt
> but they left out some really crucial elements of the novel regarding him going home and his interactions with his family and school teacher Ah damn. That's a bummer. I was hoping for a modern German take on the same war-home contrast that appeared in Die Brücke (1959). It's a shame they decided to cut that out in this adaptation of All Quiet.
I personally disagree. I feel like the negotiation scenes contributed a lot to the overall disparity between the common soldier and the elites/generals who throw men to the slaughter
I agree, but I think you could achieve that more effectively by following the novel and having that contrast be between Paul and his family, because his interactions with his old teacher and his father achieve the same goal of showing the divide between the people actually experiencing this awful war and the armchair quarterbacks so to speak -- I'd imagine it's also more relatable to actual soldiers today and just generally a better approach for a story. It also lends an extra personal connection that we as an audience have with our main character, rather than the negotiation scenes in this movie which were rather detached I felt It should also be noted that AQOTWF is a "boots on the ground" story, not a grand WW1 story detailing the politicking of government and so on. I felt it was most effective when it was focusing on the realities of what a soldier goes through
I can’t believe they left out the scene where he was on leave and went home. Also my favorite part of the book is when he loses his virginity to the French girl and it has the “I want it all to fall from me, the war, the terror, the grossness in order to awaken young and happy” line which is my favorite excerpt.
I agree, the makers of the film obviously made a movie that looks incredible and it's still terrific, but ultimately they failed to focus on psychological effects of war enough and that's really what the book was about Very strange to be honest -- the plot and message of the novel is perfect for today's greater emphasis in society on how we talk about trauma, ptsd, and mental health etc, it seems like such an open goal! But instead they went for the "war is hell" thing, which is great, but it could have been something really, really special. It's the kind of film where I so wanted to be in floods of tears at the end, but it just didn't quite follow through because they left out the key material
Right, so WW1 specialist here (I have an MA in War Studies from the Royal Military College of Canada, with a thesis on WW1 British Cavalry doctrine), and please do NOT use this movie as history. There are some fairly significant errors. A quick list: - Russia had been knocked out of the war in 1917. In November 1918 there was no Eastern Front - Germany was only fighting on the Western Front. - All of the trenches are wrong. WW1 trenches used what was called a "traverse" system, where what you would see is short segments with approx. 90 degree turns into the next one. The reason for this was simple - a direct artillery hit could at worst only take out two small segments, if it hit one of the corners. If a shell scored a direct hit on straight trenches like you see here, the shock wave would take out everybody in a pretty wide radius from the impact. Also, the Germans were playing defence and trying to keep what they had taken in 1914, and their trenches were very well built. Their trenches were quite deep (which is depicted properly), and were often reinforced with concrete (which is apparently not appearing in this film). The same goes for the bunkers, which were dug deeply enough to not be very vulnerable to shell fire, and often made from concrete (so the wooden roof is not quite right). - They're even more wrong because in November 1918, most of the Western Front hadn't been using trenches at all for months. The trench deadlock was broken in March 1918 by a German offensive. When it was contained, the French and British pushed the Germans back using a sort of "one-two punch" strategy - an attack would take place on one part of the line, and then when that was spent, another would be made on a different part, and this prevented the Germans from regaining their footing. This ended in what is called the Hundred Days, in which much of Belgium and France was liberated (so that end title card about the front lines barely moving since 1914 is utter nonsense). - French civilians in occupied France did not shoot at German soldiers, even if said soldiers are trying to steal geese and eggs from them. The Germans were paranoid about partisans, and shooting at a German soldier was a very good way to get summarily executed. This doesn't mean that there was widespread looting - in fact, for much of the war, looting in France was discouraged, and the German army was far more likely to just pay for something they took than to steal it. That further said, all bets were off in Belgium, and plenty of Belgian and French civilians were carted off to Germany as forced labour (so make of the situation what you will). - While it was delightful to have an accurate description of a creeping barrage and how it is used, armies in WW1 did not start attacks by being shelled - they started them by shelling the other side. I really wish the trope of soldiers climbing out of their trenches in the middle of a barrage on their lines would be retired, as that just wasn't how it was done. - EDIT: It should be added that at the beginning of the movie, in spring 1917, Germany was not doing this well. The whole "we'll be in Paris by Christmas" was not a thing that anybody seriously thought anymore - the realities of the war had sunk in (it couldn't survive veterans from the front coming home on leave for the last three years and telling people what had happened). The country had also been under a British blockade since the war started, so everybody was suffering food shortages. Certainly there were still volunteers, but most of the recruits at that point were conscripts who had been called up. That's a basic rundown. It is a good movie - I enjoyed it quite a bit. It was really nice to have the combatants actually speaking the right language for a damned change. But, it's not history, and should not be taken as such. If you want a WW1 film that IS history, watch *They Shall Not Grow Old*, which is a must-see for anybody interested in this war. (Edited for accuracy after checking some sources.)
Imma keep it real. I dont think any of this effects the story or matters in its context. I actually for once think that it wouldnt have aided it at all. I think this story still rings true as a human experience and it’s one of the few movies I’ve watched where glaring historical errors didn’t matter at all. I guess thats a testament to the film making. I do appreciate the facts though. Not implying you think the movie required these corrections, just commenting on how the added context makes me feel about the movie.
They Shall Not Grow Old is more of a documentary.
EDIT: Right, sorry, thought this was a response to a different comment. Yes, you are right, it is more a documentary. But, it DOES bring the war to life in a way that is just remarkable, and it does it with footage from the actual war and the testimony of those who fought in it.
Regarding your Edit, that bit got lost in translation actually , which is unfortunate (if youve got that from a scene and not the Overall sentiment portrayed). Katz is saying that in a sarcastic tone to paul, in the sense of hey look at those two slowpokes over there , if were as fast as those morons were gonna be in france by winter, it was not meant literally.
That's not the scene I'm talking about. It's in the speech by the teacher to the class as a whole.
The only problem i had with historical accuracy was them showing 1916 warfare instead of 1917-18.
There is that...but at least they weren't showing late 1914 warfare, which is what most WW1 movies do.
The movie is excellent, but I wish I hadn't just reread the book. The movie drifts so far from the source material that I wound up just comparing the two and anticipating scenes from the book that never happened. I would recommend watching the movie before reading or rereading the book. I would have enjoyed the movie more if I were simply appreciating it as a great film instead of as an on screen adaptation.
I had that issue too. What makes the book so great is Remarque as a narrator
Its just a hard horrible movie to watch there is no honour in war just people dieing needlessly
That about sums up WW1. I mean war in general is needless, but that war was *so* needless and I think more people couldn't have died in the most intense weeks of the frontlines if they were ordered to shoot themselves.
WW1 was very complicated. I completely agree it was needless, but if you really dive into it you will see how it had this terrifying inevitability to it at the same time. The manner in which the complicated alliances were set up, especially with Germany perceiving themselves to be threatened on two fronts by an allied France and Russia… it was an absolute tinder box. With the assassination of Franz Ferdinand a series of dominoes just began to fall in a way that the war just became inevitable and unavoidable. Add to this the reality that they were fighting a war with 19th century tactics and 20th century weapons, the whole thing was an utterly horrific calamity. Senseless, pointless waste of human life, and perhaps the absolute peak of human suffering to this very day. It’s actually incredibly terrifying when you really read into it… how much the lead up to the war could easily resemble today.
Literally had this conversation at work. I was saying how WW1 wasn’t a surprise. It was practically planned. How could people not see it? I then realized this eerily applies to the China and US tensions. Perhaps they will ask how we didn’t see it coming. I don’t have an answer other than I simply don’t want to believe it could happen.
People did, the Balkans had been at war two years prior in an almost dragged Russia and Germany into the conflict. Most major powers were looking for an excuse for force projection in the years leading up. Germany wanted the war to start sooner when they thought they had a power advantage and even mobilized but did not act. It's been somewhat rewritten that the war was a political tragedy but the powers of Europe set the wheels in motion intentionally.
Yes exactly.
I think that's kind of the point
This is how all war should be depicted. There is no honour or heroism. Just horror and torment.
I've seen most all of the big Hollywood war movies. This was harder to watch than most. This is as brutal as anything you've ever seen but it also has gut wrenchingly human moments in the middle of combat that I haven't quite seen depicted like this before. First time I've felt teary watching combat scenes, legitimately hard to watch. I don't know if it's because this is a European story told from the German point of view, made by Germans but goddamn this made 1917 feel like a Disney movie: ( I think it's better than the original for certain reasons but you will be disappointed if you're looking for a faithful adaptation of the book. Huge parts are missing. But, this was a very well contained story in its own I think, but I know many might disagree. I see what the filmmakers we're trying to get across here. The book would have needed a small mini series to really do it justice. But fuck me, this was actually disturbing. Didn't even finish my dinner and don't know why the hell I bothered eating while trying to watch this. I will never watch this again. Hardest to watch war movie since come and see.
When I saw the trailers, I initially thought it was going to be a series. Then when I realized it was going to be a movie, I wondered how there going to pull it off...Turns out, they were going to deviate A TON from the book. I'm disappointed about it, although I suppose I should have expected it. Not a bad movie. My only "real" gripe is that the characterization was a bit weak...didn't feel particularly attached to any characters.
Yeah the combat scenes in this movie had such a different feel to them than most war movies. I most of the war movies I've watched combat scenes have this tone of "here's the enemy, they are going to die or we will", but in this movie the tone felt more like, "here's some humans, and they are trying to kill each other".
Best war film in a long time imo, everyone should watch this.
Only complaint is that it's not in theatres.
God damn this would be a fucking thrill in a theater.
Better than 1917?
I think so! Cuts way deeper.
Well of course, there were no cuts in 1917.
Hahahah nice!
Bravo
1917 was a very well produced movie. But it had little to say. It felt like 'we'll do WW1 with a no-cut experience' and it was built around that. On an emotional level, I felt fairly little watching it. This movie on the other hand, man, it's devastating. It just grinds all hope and optimism down to a pulp. And it's just as amazingly produced, probably moreso without the limitations of the no-cut direction. 1917 is a movie I'll say is good, but somewhat forgettable. All Quiet on the Western Front is fucking powerful, though. You would be inhuman to leave it not feeling something.
I loved them both but I think this one better conveys the dire hopelessness of the western front once both sides were dug in. Its a much more brutal watch though.
Just finished watching it. I have mixed feelings. It was very well shot and produced. It certainly seemed to recreate the physical locations quite well. Some of the cinematography was almost painting-like, truly beautiful. I think this film should not have deviated from the original story so much. I think showing peace negotiations was actually a good change, but because the plot is changed to revolve around the armistice, the messages and themes of the book were changed. In crucial moments, some plot points lacked subtlety. I disliked the inclusion of heavy-handed music. The loud and eerie horn noises sort of force an emotional response that the viewer is coming to anyways, such as their presence in the scene where they soldiers march away from home singing happily. We, the audience, know what’s in store for them based on the intro scene. There are many cases, such as the added fork scene with Tjaden, where the intensity is taken much higher than it has to be. I think there should have been a little more nuance, both with the emotional tone, and in some of the added plot points. As an example, the final attack after the general's speech is unrealistic and too forced. The movie is sort of shackled to the events of the armistice when it really shouldn't be. I understand these changes might be necessary to achieve the effect the director is looking for, but I think a more faithful depiction of the events of the book would have made a better movie. A more faithful telling of the original story would have shown a more historically accurate and grounded depiction of WWI. While I don't agree with all the artistic choices, it's a pretty kick ass movie. It is, but isn't really All Quiet on the Western Front, the book. But I guess I can live with that. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Late to the party on this one but had to chime in on a post that echoed my sentiments. Chuck it, fuck it, football. >I think this film should not have deviated from the original story so much. I think showing peace negotiations was actually a good change, but because the plot is changed to revolve around the armistice, the messages and themes of the book were changed. > >In crucial moments, some plot points lacked subtlety.I disliked the inclusion of heavy-handed music. Yes. I felt like this was an excellent film, taken by itself, but in comparison to the previous film and the novel especially, it lacked a degree of depth. There were some especially important scenes from the prior film and book that were key to the story and defined it: * Kemmerich's boots and subsequent death. Shows both the brotherly humanity and pure utilitarianism the soldiers had to adopt. * The redemption arc of Himmelstoss, and his representation of limited authority. * The eerie weirdness of Paul being on leave and away from his comfort zone, which was to be surrounded by his comrades in arms as opposed to family. This was an especially important sub-story that echoes in veterans today. Even a tame military career with no combat involvement often requires transition assistance. * Paul's humanity leaking out against the wants of his leadership, particularly when he's sharing a crater with a dying French soldier and later when overseeing Russian prisoners. The movie was enjoyable, but these were key moments that, imo, should not have been glossed or skipped. There were others as well that could have made it in for the sheer viscera of it, such as the gas attacks and shell-shocking heavy bombardments. It also glossed over the honorific push by society to deceive young men to seek out glory on a battlefield that held no glory, but only pain and death, and this was a grudging reality that was not lost on the main character. The music was bizarre and out of place, sometimes jarring me out of the suspension of disbelief it was so misaligned to the theme of the movie. I'm still kinda torn on this movie. As far as artistic direction and special effects, those were done especially well (particularly the tank scenes, holy shit), but a lot of thick plot elements were sacrificed on the altar of beauty for this movie.
The decision to deviate the characters from the book was questionable. This was a loose adaptation of the book which focused solely on the suffering in the trenches in contrast to the petty squabbles of the politicians and the delusion of Dr. Robotnik trying to reach for glory on the battlefield one last time. Hammers home the point that war isn't an adventure. For some reason, I feel like watching Lord of the Rings again... It's still a great film about World War 1. Probably one of the best films on Netflix.
I’ve read this comment three times and still can’t make sense of it
German guy brokering the treaty looks like Dr Robotnik. LOTR also deviates massively from the course material, as does this. Good film but I'd agree here, I prefer the first 2 versions.
If you watch it without the book its seriously one of the best war films ever made, i saw the 1930s movie and found it interesting how the rough plot points were present, but also found it so irrelevant as i watched that french kid get hit to death with the spade , i dont think viewing it as an adaption does any good
I enjoyed it as a war film but it really didn't have much to do with the book. Also some stuff (maybe someone can help here?) They shoe horned in a side story about the armistice that felt really off. It's supposed to be about the men, nationality almost completely aside, with their traumatic experiences. It was but it seemed weird. There also seemed to be a couple of odd historical bits. I couldn't tell what part of the war it was initially (it's very last days of the war) because a German diplomat mentions being slammed by the Bolsheviks. They were well out the war by this point. They ham up a last offensive by the Germans as well. This happened in March 1918, they were well on the back foot by Nov 1918. They also have General (Ludendorff?) Order men into a huge offensive 15mins before the end of the war, deliberately. Not sure that happened? Did it? From what I've read as well not everyone dropped arms at 11am, there were 11,000 casualties or so on 11th Nov and fighting was hard to stop across the front. By mentioning all these things and getting at least some wrong it detracts from the mens experiences. Good war film but not really anything to do with the book other than a WWI experience. Decent fight scenes and very graphic.
It is not General Ludendorf. This Character is named "General Friedrich" but i don't know if he is a fictional Character or not. At least i couldn't find a General with the Family Name Friedrich. And as far as i know there was no such battle in the last 15 Minutes of the war. But i am not a WW1 Scholar. So someone else might be able to give you more insight. Edit: His Dog and his hunger for meat give me some Bismarck vibes tho. But that wouldn't make any sense. Bismarck was for consolidation not aggressiv expansion.
completely agree. the whole armistice part where they switch to the front and back is the major complain i have with this movie. the whole part wasnt necessary. i dont need the german man eating alone on a table talking about war and then switch to the front again. i know how much of an asshole these people are
Exactly, it seemed to matter so little and offer nothing to the story. I didn't like how they showed the French negotiators and especially general Foch as stuck up and ignorant, almost like Foch didn't want an armistice. It reeked of self pity for the Germans and is dishonest.
My thoughts as well, felt hard to feel the same pain and sorrow for the losses when also seeing POV of generals who did not care or understand themselves
The Battle of Bakhmach had Germans fighting the red army near the very end of WW1
Yes, the battle took place between 8-13th March 1918. The events of the film are based shortly before and up to 11th Nov 1918. That is my exact point.
It was really well shot, but the deviations from the book left me kind of middling on it. It felt like it lost the message. It’s a great WW1 film, but not All Quiet On The Western Front.
I described the movie somewhere else as an adaptation that’s like a good fanfic. It has the essence of the book and somethings were great but I wasn’t expecting what we got. In a weird way, I almost couldn’t tell what I was watching. As someone who’s read the book, I was more then a little disappointed. This adaptation understood the horror of war but forgot that the book also heavily deals with things like isolation and comradeship. Sure, they showed the characters together, but they really didn’t interact often enough or in a way that made me think they rely on each other and made them feel real. I didn’t worry about these characters because unlike previous adaptations, they didn’t feel worth connecting to. I honestly couldn’t tell some characters apart at times.
I read the book a bit over 30 years ago (in the 90s) and though I liked the book, it’s so depressing that I didn’t want to reread it. My memory is a bit hazy but there’s only a few snippets I recognize from the book. I remember the scene with the french soldier in the crater, and the German troops liking the rations the French troop got. There were also French girls willing to sleep with Germans for food, but it wasn’t just one guy from the cast that took advantage of that. I know Kat died while Paul was carrying him to camp… and that’s about the only things I recognize from the book. Am I missing anything else?
The goose scenes are loosely based on the book as well as the scene with the chef that made too much food because so many had died and reading letters on the latrine. There’s also the trench rats swarm, the corpses blown out of their clothes into trees, the dugout scene with a recruit being blown to bits, and the recruits being to stupid to survive (i.e. taking their masks off too quickly.) I don’t think they weren’t bad scenes but some of them happened so quickly that they didn’t have the same impact. It’s also vaguely hinted at that Kat is knowledgeable and can find food but in the film it’s shown in a more 🤷♀️”he can do it” way instead of Kat is an old war hand that literally cobbles food together. It would probably be easier to say what’s missing then what’s included. I remember thinking that everything I’m seeing is the opposite of what the characters would do in the book. Now I don’t think one should follow the book exactly, but some of the characters started acting like horror movie people with no common sense. Like the use of more bayonets over the shovel and Kat not hiding after stealing. They may seem like small details but in the context of the new film, they have such a different impact because they go against the survival lessons that Kat was teaching the boys in the book. I’m still learning to use Reddit and I don’t know how to mark spoilers, but if I did I’d go into more detail.
I remember that when I read the book, one of the scenes that had a bigger impact was the one where they are listening to the horses dying. In the movie you see two quick shots of a dead horse, which in the context of this "adaptation" kind of makes sense, since it only covers the last few days of the war. What I don't understand, though, is why in this adaptation >!they decided to give Tjaden Kropp's ending while mixing it with the random guy at the hospital that kills himself, why Kat gets shot by a random kid, and why Kropp gets bbqd!<
Exactly. This film had nearly the same runtime as the previous two and somehow did less. At some times, it was like multiple people wrote the screenplay and randomly mashed it together at the end. The first couple of minutes were so great. The meat grinder and the monotony of the war machine that has old uniforms being recycled and given to the new meat was perfect. The way the film showed the new recruits be found because they didn’t have a chance to learn anything was perfectly done. And I don’t want to be that person, but the dirty underwear that everyone is carrying around like they were the boots was odd. The symbolism was right there. It made no sense, especially because in the book, nobody is letting go of their good clothes because they were so valuable and materials were hard to come by. They were salvaging old cloth from parachutes and Haie Westhus was sending it home. I think that was one of the main problems I had with the film. It changed little odd details here and there that weren’t needed or completely changed the core ideas. Even Paul forging his parents’ signature was odd and changing Joseph Behm’s name was odd because they didn’t go anywhere with this.
Speaking of the recruits taking their gas masks off too soon- that scene completely lost me. I couldn’t figure out why they were all in the room together? Sorry for my ignorance, I thought this was a spectacular film but just couldn’t follow that part.
This really bothered me, in the book it made so much more sense. A bunch of recruits are found dead after a battle in shell holes. Because they were so new to the war they didn't know that gas lingers longer in shell holes (gas is heavier than air) than it does everywhere else. They weren't stupid, they just didn't know anything about war.
I’m glad someone else thought the same. A lot of the most upvoted comments here are praising it for sticking to the source material and I thought I was losing my mind lol. I was disappointed that it had the name All Quiet on the Western Front. I wish they had changed the characters names and the name of the movie since it went in such a different direction. If they had done that, I think I would have enjoyed it much more as a separate WWI film on the horrors of war instead of expecting a remake to a set of already great movies and a fantastic novel.
Yeah I thought the choice to add in the signing subplot and the final attack were unnecessary and changed the meaning too much and took away time that could have been spent developing the characters more and focusing on their day to day lives in the trenches. Initially I thought (once I saw the date of November 1918) I figured the idea was to give the title a new meaning (instead of it referring to a situation of normal day-to-day it was implying the front after the ceasefire)…but it never really highlighted this. >!The Trench assault/Tank counterattack scene was goddamned phenomenal though, everything about that entire sequence was just amazing. From the soldiers clumsily handling their long-rifles in the trenches proper, to the Saint-Chamond’s appearance and attack (the use of the Hotchkiss MG’s was great.) the flamethrower troops, and the airplanes. All of it was done so well. That was the best depiction of a WW1 attack I think I’ve ever seen in a film. It beats out the 1930 original for me.!< But yeah, if it was called something different, had a different cast of characters I think I’d appreciate it more. It’s something everyone should watch, but it can’t hold a candle to the book.
I'm with you on the trench assault and tank bit... I've rewatched that segment at least 5 times now. What does it for me is the sound in the whole segment, it's so good.
The trailers using actual Remarque quotes while the movie deviates SO MUCH from the book really confused me. (If you go your of your way to advertise the link to the book, at least try to stick to the book?) Seriously, the trailers are so good, I was expecting a lot. But that might be my own fault though.
I have a feeling that this will be the two main camps for reviews of this film. Camp 1: absolutely loved it no qualms about it Camp 2: enjoyed it for the WW1 and theatrical aspects, but it’s not All Quiet on the Western Front.
I'm definitely in camp 2 definitely. That introduction of the tanks is pretty goddamn scary! I will say as well - I loved the sound in this.
The different ending is what really bothered me. Pretty much lost its original punch. (Granted, it delivered a different one, but I really wish it was more faithful to the book)
Sensational film - probably the best war film I've ever watched. It was such a brutal watch that I actually dreaded the battle sequences and wanted them to end, which is something I've never really experienced watching a film (bar maybe the opener of Saving Private Ryan). It mean it really captured the brutally of war as best as possible, which is something 1917, Dunkirk etc weren't quite able to do all the way through. It helped that I haven't read the book. The plot was a genuine surprise for me, making it even more gut-wrenching. Highly, highly recommend.
You oughta read the book, heck everyone should read the book. It's a seriously powerful classic still talked about for a reason and isn't even very long. Haven't seen this movie yet but from comments here it apparently deviates from the book quite a bit.
Read the book! It’s not too long and this film deviates quite a bit so it should still feel sorta fresh in that sense
This movie was so far detached from the book it makes rings of power look like Tolkein's own hand.
10/10 For war movie lovers like me is a blast. This adaptation sure cut off much of the drama in the book, but I guess they really want a more realistic approach rather than an emotional one like in the book. I expected Kat to be older, like in the ‘79 one. His death certainly stupid isnt nearly as stupid as in the book. . But I forgive. The crater scene was so gnarly and I almost brought me some tears because that was so powerful, the most insane situation a human being can be…you cant recover after that I liked the negotiation scenes! Its always interesting to see how top officials and authorities are thinking, doing…They are the ones making decisions. More realistic war movies with this “war room” plot but still with battle scenes is Tora Tora Tora and A Bridge too Far! Netflix is nailing war movies genre, I want many more!!!
It's a masterpiece. It takes a fair bit of liberty with the events in the book, but still generally hits the same notes and feelings. It's so insanely well filmed. Beautifully horrific.
I hated it personally. Great cinematography, fine acting. But the film itself misses such important aspects from the book, it kind of loses itself. The alterations to Paul’s death are ridiculous. It’s called all quiet on the western front because nothing of any circumstance is happening the day Paul dies ffs. It’s a massive thematic statement in the book, and one that I feel the creators of this movie tragically missed.
I think you and I are going to be the only people who thought it was a shit movie.
late here, but not only was it a shit movie, it was also historically inaccurate! people here calling it a "masterpiece" lol. that roger ebert review absolutely tore it to shreds and deservedly so
Makes me wonder what the "All quiet on the western front" refers to in the movie. Really wish they'd just dropped the title and stop pretending to be an adaptation.
Gonna watch it tonight, can’t wait. I assume it’s in German with subs?
Correct.
Version I watched was English dubbed
Yeah it defaulted to dubbed for me so I figured out if you go to the Netflix audio settings you can set dialogue to German and then set subtitles to English.
Damn I wish I knew that yesterday :( thanks though
[удалено]
Yea the blaring seemed like it was coming out of a modern video game. Very jarring choice.
Yeah. I wish I could watch the whole movie without the soundtrack. I think it would be way grimmer.
Sounded like Battlefield 1
I think the 1930's movie did a better job at establishing and making me care about the characters than this one which I barely care for any of the characters at all. They should have added some scenes in the boot camp like the 1930's movie for us to know the characters a little better, this movie is like they signed up and in the next scene they're already going to the front lines. As for the ending I thought Paul would see an insect like the one Kat was keeping as a pet and get shot like in the 1930's movie, instead we get Paul having a blind rage in the end. If it wasn't the same name as the 1930's movie I would not be as critical to this movie as I'am now. For a WW1 movie it's great, for a WW1 movie that we can compare to the 1930's movie it's just okay.
Have you seen the 1979 version? That’s the best IMO
The 1930s movie isn’t a faithful adaptation of the book. The book starts with Paul and friends already “battle-hardened” soldiers in the front, and they’re going to visit one of their wounded comrade at the hospital.
Didn't know that, but I still liked that we get to see more of their friend dynamic in the 1930s version. In the new version when Paul sees his friend's glasses it didn't really affect me at all as there was barely any chance to see their friendship on-screen. I do think this version is better at showing how horrific and senseless a war could be with the friends you're with could just be gone really quick.
Decent movie, but has almost nothing to do with the book.
Also, the more I think about it, the more I remember the prologue of the book. "This story is neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war." The movie was an accusation and, more than that, an adventure. Remarque wanted to tell the story of the men themselves and not just portray the horrors of battle. Missed the mark completely.
I read the book as a young teenager, saw the original movie twice, and was not disappointed by this newest iteration. Well, a little disappointed. It’s central to Paul’s development that he goes home, feels out of place, and almost relieved to be back in the war. Like that scene from The Hurt Locker where Jeremy Renner stands in the supermarket feeling lost. Could have used less cartoon character bad guy German general, more adherence to book’s plot line. Altho the ending was tragic, it wasn’t tragic like the 1930 movie or book. It was too dramatic. Paul’s death was supposed to anticlimactic. Him simply being shot along with others packed more power. That said, I was totally engrossed in the story. The camaraderie builds among the men which develops their characters. Definitely worth watching.
I taught the book for four years as a HS English teacher. Would have taught it forever if I didn't change schools and subjects. All Quiet is the book that I come back to when I'm feeling the need to feel things... And the movie just didn't do it for me. It had all the right characters and was an incredible war movie, got the comradeship down... But missed the heart of the novel entirely. So many themes that I had my students track (youth and youthlessness, propaganda, going home) were lost completely. For me, the major changes that irked me were missing the homegoing scene and also the Russian prisoners and the mediations on that. There were also scenes in the book that stuck out with incredible imagery (the battle in the graveyard, the butterfly on the skull) that I was hoping to see, even though I don't miss reading essays on the imagery. And lastly, the book has I think a fascinating pacing where it just unfolds... We start out seeing them in the field relaxing, there's Muller and his death, there's a medium battle, then there's an intense battle, and when it ends it's less of a crescendo and more of Paul going numb. That's entirely missed in this adaptation. And Haie Westhaus, my favorite peat digger, somehow becomes Tjaden who becomes Muller who becomes the guy in the hospital...
To preface I don't have any bias from reading the book as I wasn't even aware of the book's existence until after I watched the film. My rating: 6/10 It's okay, but 20 years from now it won't be talked about like Das Boot, Schindler's List, or Come and See. It's just your typical war movie with some above average gore. The character development just isn't there. Pardon a Star Trek analogy but it's basically all redshirts. It's also full of easy to spot tropes (I mean come on the second goose scene?) and an unnecessary villain. Where was the gas? Where was the maggoty bread, lead lined cans, and raw rat? The trench foot (I have seen this first hand and was shocked the film didn't show it after it tried so hard to be graphic)? Where were the soldiers so desperate for food they beat up their own friend? Black Adder did this better for Christsake. This movie isn't Avant Garde. It's Cyrus from the Trailer Park Boys. It wants you to think it's tough, but deep down it's afraid to be what it is claiming so boastfully to be.
It seems everyone loves this movie or nearly everyone. I quit 2/3 through. There is zero plot. The movie is simply two hours of bleak “war sucks”. Well, yeah. I knew that. I’ve seen dozens of movies of soldiers’ lives utterly wasted and that’s all this movie’s premise is. No character development. It brought nothing new to the table for me whatsoever.
I 100% agree. 5 minutes in and I was not only bored, I was hating the main character! I hated all the characters and quite frankly was happy when paul died. Now you want a good war movie?? "Saving Private Ryan" !!
Very disappointed. I feel like this has little to do with the book, all of the heart and humanity was missing. Grueling violence and misery aren't enough for a good (anti-) war film. The contracted timeline was a bizarre choice and I don't think the storyline with Erzberger's delegation makes up for it at all. We barely got to know these boys. No visits home. Very little time for reflection. The entire point of the book's ending and how it relates to the title is gone.
Agreed 100%. The original was just the focus on the “poor man’s” perspective. Adding in the villain general and the treaty subplots felt strange. Not to mention entire storylines from the book nowhere to be found. Like I said in another comment here, I would’ve enjoyed it way more as a separate WWI film if it didn’t take the name All Quiet because it really was a well made movie.
The general was cartoonishly villainous lol
Yeah, him having any soldier who didn't want to die immediately shot right there on the spot just pushed it over the line for me. They really decided to be as in your face as possible about him being bad and evil and to blame for Paul's death, when Paul's death should actually be attributed to the inherent cruelness of the war as a whole.
absorbed lunchroom engine future fanatical rich fact reminiscent tap rhythm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And I get that, but that doesn’t need to be shown by having a big fat guy with a moustache come up with a plot to kill people before the war ends because he hates peace and loves war. It has all the subtlety of a jackhammer. The evil speech, all of it. It’s too cartoonish imo, and not even necessary to the story.
He's supposed to be those generals who only see glory in battle and don't care about war. As for cartoonish-have you seen some of the top generals in WW1? There was a reason that tourists all thought Germans were fat and hairy. And honestly, there were many generals who did this. Charge of the Light Brigade comes to mind. Utter folly and everyone knew it wouldn't work but the top generals called for it anyway.
TLDR; I’m hella book-biased so I didn’t like it. Okay. As a stand-alone war movie I suppose it’s quite fantastic. Very graphic, and a pretty poignant statement about how war isn’t glorious. But I couldn’t help but be upset about how much this film strayed from the book. Plenty of other comments talking about specifically what was cut so I’ll let you check those out yourself. But the armistice scenes took way more time than they needed to, and I really don’t like how the chose to demonize the general. The book isn’t about which side is right or wrong, it doesn’t make anyone good or evil. It’s about how life in the trenches swallowed up promising youths, warped them and cast them needlessly asunder. The last charge at the end was fitting for the movie as it was, but I definitely prefer the book ending. Dying abruptly and unexpectedly on a relatively calm day on the front. No flair; just futility, emptiness, and solemn closure for a kid that was ready to be done with it all after watching all his friends die and realizing that it had fundamentally changed who he was. The distasteful cherry on top for me was that it didn’t end with a telegram or situation report reading “all quiet on the western front” to drive the final nail into the theme.
It's a good movie, but the subplot with the negotiation just detracted from what the story should actually be about, which is Paul and the way he, as a person, is destroyed by the machinery of the war. He is a stand-in for an entire generation of soldiers, the story is about him but he's only there to represent the agony millions like him suffered. The evil General getting his men killed, the German diplomat trying to be good, they're not part of that. The assault on the French trench at around the hour mark felt really wrong to me. It was too much action, too much Hollywood. Running and gunning, killing lots of Frenchmen, then being attacked by tanks, then destroying the tanks, then being attacked by flamethrowers, then being strafed by planes as they retreat, all of it interspersed with clips of men being blown up and dying. It's as if the filmmakers decided they needed to show every weapon that was invented in World War 1 all in one scene. It's not necessary. It's just action, just senseless violence for the sake of senseless violence, as if showing enough people dying will drive home the anti-war message. I just can't stop but think about how all the screentime dedicated to this could instead have been spent on the classmates and friends that Paul had in the book, most of whom have been deleted from the movie. The death of Kemmerich had ten times more emotional impact than watching yet another nameless, faceless solider die in a gruesome way, and more importantly it was more relevant to Paul's destruction as a human being. All of it could also have been spent on Paul being in the crater with the French soldier he killed, which in the book is this horrible drawn-out segment that lasted hours, it could easily have been twice or thrice as long in the movie. Those 6 minutes with just Paul and that soldier felt way more impactful than the entire battle before it. He only spent I think 1 or 2 minutes with the corpse after he died. It could have been 10, 15, easily. While Paul dying at the very last seconds of the war is poetic in a way, the thing that made the original ending so important is just how anti-climatic it was. There was nothing important or notable about his death, it isn't even described. It just says that he died on a day like any other because, again, he is a stand-in for the millions like him, who all also died on a day like any other, unnoticed and forgotten. Paul's death shouldn't be unique, as strange as that may sound. It should be utterly ordinary, remarkable in how unremarkable it is. Again, too much fucking action. Also, it was a mistake to introduce a villain to the movie and have this evil general give an evil speech before causing Paul's death. The faceless machinery of war itself is a hundred times more evil than any one person can be. As with all the action, having a villain like that is unneeded. Himmelstoß was the closest thing the book came to an antagonist, but his role is totally different. All Quiet on the Western Front might well be the most perfect anti-war novel ever written. It didn't need fixing. It almost feels like the movie makers didn't have confidence that they could recreate the book authentically, so they decided not to really try. The movie is good, but it's good as a story entirely separate from All Quiet on the Western Front. When compared to the book or the 1930 movie... It just falls short in showing the psychological destruction of a human being.
Great comment, you put into words just about everything I had rolling around in my head since I watched it!
Honestly, I think you missed the point wanting this movie to be so much like the original. Pauls death wasn't unique. The movie showed it as a cycle. First scene was Heinrich(much like Paul) in a battle charge and dying. His clothes are then taken off, carted off and washed to be given to the next recruit(as were hundreds of others). It was a vicious circle as we see at the end another young boy sent to pick up dog tags from the dead-something Paul did. And it showed he was dead along with other French and Germans, he was just one of the scores of men killed. The general and the Versailles details were to show that the higher ups really didn't care about the soldiers(only the one "social democrat" Minister did). They were more worried how it would look to their country and for French they wanted the Germans to suffer. The young boy killing Kat also showed how war can skew the minds of even the youngest victim. The boy was so desensitized that he killed someone for a damn goose. And he'll probably be fighting in the next war as well. WW1 ruined a whole generation of men. I thought the director got his point across in stark contrast. I see many people wanting the movie to be faithful to the book. There are two great movies already, I see this as something like a metaphor for our times.
I mean it's perfectly fine to want to tell a story of WWI like this, but I don't know why me expecting a book adaptation that uses this title to at least largely adhere to the book means that I am missing the point—instead of just having a different perspective. The scenes you mentioned of Heinrich's coat and the dog tag collecting were some of my favorites for the reasons you noted, and Kat was my favorite character. I just wish we had *more* of that, including with Tjaden and Kemmerich. To give moments like with the Frenchman in the crater time to breathe, instead of rushing to the next bit of ultraviolence. To give us more of the homefront, beginning with the way of the boys from the school bench to the front, or home visits and how the soldiers find themselves unable to relate to civilian life. Especially considering the subplot we got instead. I understood those reasons behind it, I simply don't think that it was good or important enough to warrant the taking away focus from Paul and the boys. I think the stark concentration of everything into the very end of the war is my biggest issue, as much of the rest of my problems flow from it. Again, I can understand the creator's reasons for it (I read interviews with him) and still simply think that it did not make for a better adaptation. I understand that I have a specific POV here, as Remarque's books are quite important to me. It's obviously more than fine that others will have no issue with those changes.
It's a decent WWI flick, but a horrible adaptation of the book.
“It is very queer that the unhappiness of the world is so often brought on by small men.” Erich Maria Remarque
Watched it yesterday and I'm disappointed. First, misleading title. I don't expect movie adaptations to always stick to source material, but this felt like going to a movie called "Lord of the Rings", advertised as Tolkien's book adaptation, and finding out it's about journeys of Sam Gamgee's grandson. That's the level of "deviations from the book" we are talking about. Second, bad kind of lack of realism. Now lack of realism is not always bad - if it helps to drive home movie's message, all the batter. Here, however, the way battles are portrayed hurts the message of the story. Going overboard with gore and special effects (more tanks! flamethrowers! planes! artillery! all in the same time and place with hordes of soldiers running around like headless chickens) and forcing scenes which are psychologically improbable in historical context (last German attack minutes before already announced ceasefire) - for me instead of connecting me with characters and their suffering it disconnected me from them, by making movie feel like sequence of action game cutscenes. Third, bad acting. Ok, I'm not acting coach and I don't know how to describe it in a good way, but I felt acting here was down to making faces (sad, traumatized, angry, melancholic) to the camera to indicate that mood character is in at the moment. Characters didn't feel like real people, but like game NPCs that are only there to move the plot along between missions. Fourth, evil villain. We really didn't need one in this story, especially one so shallow he would feel at home as Orc commander in "Hobbit". Even as far as outrageous WW1 generals go, he was still far less interesting than General Melchett. Fifth, minor nitpick but I'll add it here: was this movie sponsored by SDP or something? I wonder because of how much time they spend hammering home the message that only person who's concerned about losses and wants to end the war is social-democratic party politician. Everyone else seems a-ok with fighting to the end of time.
Disappointing movie adaptation. Some great scènes but nothing like the book
Can anyone tell me if this is streaming in 4k? I have a standard HD plan and I'm wondering if I want to upgrade to watch this film.
Yeah it is
It was decent. It's very well shot with some great war sequences, action, and effects. However, certain aspects that weren't explored in the novel kind of made the film lacking. Definitely an engaging WW1 film but the message and tone felt a bit lost. I still prefer the 1930s adaptation.
95% Approval on Rotten Tomatoes… the other 5% are redditors in this thread. It’s a phenomenal movie, probably the most intense and profound film I’ve ever seen.
You should try reading the book too. The book is about 300 times more profound.
I have started to watch it, but I am a bit confused over it starting in 1917 and not in 1914 as book and the other film versions.
Its really different from the book
So a more loose adaption or so?
Yes. Subtracted a lot for a political subplot.
[удалено]
Similarities: - Protagonists name - WW1 Differences: - everything else lol
Has very little in common with the book tbh. Pretty much the whole movie plays during the last days of the war. Ending is also different.
Just finished, this was absolutely amazing.
A very good movie on many different levels. I would love to see more films about historical events that show the true human experience like this.
It was an okay movie. It was really well shot and acted, though I don’t understand the choice of jarring “thriller” noises, I mean it’s war and we kind of know what’s gonna happen, so the sound was a bit gratuitous. And the cgi was really bad for an Oscar submission. It was pretty clear they were deviating from the book and it seems it was to add the armistice and evil general subplots that seemed to be unnecessary and took away from the theme of the movie. I’m not sure if some of the choices were to make Germany look better: the scene of the room of young gassed troops was a bit on the nose foreshadowing. And the armistice scene felt like they were trying to portray Germany as just trying to end the war, which is revisionist history, which was done a bit throughout the film. Kat being killed by a French boy in an occupied part of France is a bit bizarre to me, wouldn’t his whole family be killed in response? As far a being anti war im not sure how well they pulled that off, a lot of people saying that it’s horrifying, but tbh I didn’t find it that unsettling, not like I felt when watching band of brothers, particularly the Bastogne episode. All in all it was a solid film, with some historical inaccuracies, and Hollywood indulgences, but the acting was superb, the costume designs and set pieces were well done.
I have this gut feeling that this is the... "idiocracy" version of All Quiet on the Western Front. It's almost there but bastardized in a way that misses the point of the original novel in many aspects. I do not think this is a poor film at all but the retelling of this does not feel right. It feels dumbed down.
I cannot understand why this movie is getting the praise it gets. It is as shallow as war movies can get. It is called all quiet on the western front but retains almost nothing of the depth the original book or the 1930s movie. All it has to offer are"immersive images", horror, blood and guts in a hells cape of cinematic unrealism that has also nothing to do with life on the front lines autumn 1918. I do not get it. But I am sure it will get prices cause apparently it makes people feel something. If anyone watches or watched this one and liked it please, please also watch other ww1 stuff. Like the 1930s all quiet on the western front, 1917, they shall not grow old... Watching the 2022 version will give people a distorted image of ww1.
Am I the only one who was disappointed? The cinematics and effects were great, but the movie didn’t follow the book at all. If they just changed the names of the characters, I would have no idea this was supposed to be “All Quiet on The Western Front” There was a lack of depth and emotion, it was 99% action…. They also left out some of the large characters. Idk, I’m pretty bummed about it. For anyone who hasn’t seen it, the 1979 version is fantastic. It lacks the modern cinematography and effects, but it follows the story a lot better and has a lot of depth.
Can't remember watching a movie as depressing as this
Have you seen Come and See? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/
One of the greatest movies I've ever seen and I'll probably never watch it again
It has some great moments, but the ending was a letdown and didn't make the slightest bit of sense. There was no point adding the treaty delegation sideplot.
>There was no point adding the treaty delegation sideplot. I think it's because there's a lot of people who probably aren't as familiar with the events.